As most people reading here already know, I work for Microsoft as a technology evangelist. However, writing this blog, as well as whatever else I do online in the social media space is entirely my own choice, and not Microsoft’s.
Keep that in mind as you sit down, relax, and listen as I tell you a story…
Boycott Novell: “This is not a hate site”
I had a pretty interesting experience this past week.
Last week, while I was browsing around the Internet, I chanced upon this article on a website called Boycott Novell (BN) which talked about Bing.
To my surprise, with all of the good buzz that Bing has been getting since its launch, this article was a poorly-organized mess of incredible negativity and aggressiveness, even going as far as accusing Microsoft of bribery and vandalism (I’m not kidding – read the article). Naturally, it doesn’t mention anything positive about Bing whatsoever, despite the undeniable fact that literally thousands have expressed positive sentiments for Bing on both the blogosphere and on Twitter.
This was strange to me, since BN proclaims that:
This is not a hate site. This is neither a crusade nor any type of propaganda front. We have our mind set on a single goal: finding out the truth.
[...]
If you are new to this site or just happen to lurk, we encourage you to take part in the discussion. We perceive comments as discussions, not just placements for feedback and correction. We are very responsive to comments.
So naturally, in the spirit of open social media discussion, I left a comment, expressing my opinion that I felt the article was a collection of cherry-picked articles against Microsoft.
My debate with the author went on for a few rounds, and finally to my surprise, the author accuses me of being a paid astroturfer and a Microsoft shill for failing to disclose that I work for Microsoft in my comments.
Now, I have a few problems with this accusation:
- First of all, it is simply not practical to disclose who you work for or represent in every single blog comment you leave. Hardly anyone does that. Scoble doesn’t do it. Matt Cutts doesn’t do it.
- What most people do however (including myself), is to leave a URL link to their website or blog so interested people can find out more about who you are. I never comment anonymously, and I didn’t do so in this case.
- I never tried to obfuscate the fact that I worked for Microsoft. In fact, on my About page, I prominently state in the first few lines that I am a a technology evangelist working for the biggest software company in the world. If that’s not enough, on the front page of my blog is a prominent link to my public LinkedIn profile, which clearly shows that I work for Microsoft.
- The worse thing is, comments have been disabled on the post which accuses me of being an astroturfer. So much for a site which claims to “encourage you to take part in the discussion” and is “very responsive to comments”.
I can say with 100% certainty that every other blog I’ve visited and commented on before (even the slightly more fanatical blogs like TheAppleBlog), people will argue and debate with you about the points you bring up til no end, but they will never attack your character or who you work for.
That is social media. That is open discussion.
Alas, not on BN. If you read the entire comment thread, you will realize that the author (as well as some in the BN community) rather attack you for who you are, instead of debating you on your arguments. Boden Larsen, a neutral commentator, sums it up best:
Yes, [Roy Schestowitz, the site author] resorts to an ad hominem attack and then goes on to defend this strategy. In my opinion you can never win once things turn in this direction, so don’t sweat it. I’m sure that many readers here see what’s happening even if they remain silent.
Obsession and Paranoia?
The initial encounter with BN piqued my interest in the website, not so much because of the content or their accusations, but because I found it both amusing and surprising at how paranoid and obsessed the BN community really was with everything Microsoft.
Here’s a sampling of articles published after my “encounter” with them:
- I subscribed to the BN news feed. Out comes this article: Boycott Novell Has New Subscriber
- BN actually filed a complaint to the FTC! Looking forward to see what comes out of this: Microsoft Reported to the FTC for AstroTurf Marketing
- BN also published a list of all known evangelists working for Microsoft. What’s hilarious to me, is that Brian Gorbett (Microsoft Evangelist) actually commented to have his particulars updated!
- BN has no choice but to change their commenting policy, claiming themselves to be the victim from abuse and intimidation from trolls.
- David “Lefty” Schlesinger, who is a member of the Linux community and has been falsely accused by BN before, defended me on many of the comments I made on BN. Naturally, BN (remember, they are the victim) has no qualms about smearing him.
And as expected, all of the accusatory posts above have commenting disabled.
Penguin Pete is the typical type of individual that you will find hanging out at BN. Check out these two articles that he wrote (one of which was quoted as a “source” on BN). Check out these gems which I took as direct quotes from his articles (all emphasis is his):
You know who Linux’s enemy is? Oh, nobody much. Just the most powerful corporation in the known universe, founded by the richest human being in the universe.
[...]
Well, that’s what’s going on in Linux and the FOSS community. Pardon us, but we’re fighting for our freaking LIVES! And everybody else’s freedom too, even if they don’t care about it themselves much.
[...]
Who else is on their side? Because, as a highly proud member of the Technology Freedom Movement, I’ll tell you this today: You’re with us or against us.
I know, that sounds really Republican-going-to-Iraq, doesn’t it? It isn’t often that life provides us such a black-and-white situation. But that’s what makes this day so special. This thing is snowballing out of control, picking up more people from both sides every day. Watch the comments, watch the blogs, mine, yours, everybody’s. Through it all, we will have a very clear view of what color shirt everybody is wearing.
You’re with us or against us. You’re with us or against us. You’re with us or against us.
To further show his classiness, he takes an otherwise inspirational story about the principal developer for Microsoft’s Internet Explorer, and twists it around to show the superiority of FOSS developers:
Since one of the commenters below launched into the typical spiel about how professional coders at proprietary software companies produce superior output compared to the hobbyists of open source who are all wearing sandals, etc., blah, blah, blah…I found this amusing, assuming it isn’t a parody site (crossing fingers). Here is the principle developer for Microsoft Internet Explorer. He’s a dropout, self-educated, and has prior job experience at at McDonalds, coffee shops, and a hotdog stand – and that’s not even the most embarrassing thing he says about himself.
What was that superior difference between FOSS and proprietary software again?
Anyway, let’s go back to BN:
I asked the BN community recently what they thought about Microsoft releasing 20,000 lines of source code to Linux. Surely as advocates of Linux and open source software, they would be happy right? I mean, even Greg Kroah-Hartman, the current Linux kernel maintainer and the lead of the Linux Driver Project, thinks it’s a great move.
By now though, you can probably guess that BN folks are less than thrilled:
As we know from inerrant Microsoft, Linux is a cancer that infects everything it touches. Microsoft just touched Linux. Is Microsoft a cancer now?
[...]
Microsoft’s “contribution” was made for one reason only, and that’s to promote their virtualisation stack. Ultimately, this only benefits those who run Windows.
Are we supposed to jump up and down for joy because of this?
Hardly.
Finally, if you are still not convinced that BN is an anti-Microsoft hate site sans a single thread of objectivity, well… listen to what the site author, Roy Schestowitz has to say:
This site is as much “anti-Microsoft” as the United States is “anti-Madoff” and the British are “anti-Mugabe”.
Those who do the crimes deserve no favouritism.
Folks, you decide for yourself whether BN and its community are obsessed and paranoid.
Social Media FAIL?
The question I ask myself is this – If I were in Roy’s shoes and I have a personal vendetta against Microsoft, is running BN in this manner the best possible way I can execute a plan to change public perception and win sympathizers?
I think for those who have been around social media a lot, you know that social media is all about credibility. And by consistently misinterpreting facts, using untrue but sensational headlines, censoring comments, using an immature, aggressive and condescending tone, and generally being poorly-researched, I can guess that Boycott Novell doesn’t have much (if any) credibility with anyone important in technology.
But then again, it could be that the facts are not on BN’s side, which means Roy has no choice but to make a lot of noise and hope to appeal to others’ emotions instead of debating using sound arguments and facts.
In any case, as much as BN claims otherwise, it is certainly not an open community, much less one that encourages open discussion and alternate interpretations/opinions.
What does the Linux/Open Source community think?
The last thing I was really curious about was whether BN represented the views of the open source community in general, or are they just a self-contained bunch of anti-Microsoft fanatics.
To get that answer, I did a simple search on Google (I didn’t use Bing, lest others accuse Bing of censoring results 
).
Here is a post from the Linux community Linsux.org:
Update: It has been brought to my attention that Linsux.org is not a Linux community (in fact, far from it). So please take the comments below for what it’s worth. My bad.
Wow. I can’t say anything else but the so over used: BoycottNovell is the cancer that’s destroying Linux community.
Damn I never thought they were so “cunning”. That’s so real planing and “FUD” from their end. This Shit-what’s-his-name-itz is one psychotic megalomaniac planner. He know exactly hot to pull the strings.
Thank god he never became a politician, or things could be totally different.I prefer that Shit-what’s-his-name-itz remains in BN rather then try to get some other more influential place in society.
What about the Ubuntu community, what do they think? [1, 2]
I think that boycott novell is pure garbage.
Do anyone even relies on it’s information? since it only spreads FUD and Conspiracy theory’s IMHO. I wonder myself how some articles are sometimes the most digged (on Digg).
Also this site gives bad name to the Linux comunity, giving an image that our comunity are a bunch of radicals and software “terrorists” who want to plant a Bomb on Redmond.
It’s obvious if you read the comments on the boycottnovell article regarding the codec issue, that these guys think they are better than everyone else – anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their views is, in their mind, unwelcome in Linux.
These guys are whack-jobs.
When BN tries to cross post their articles on the comp.os.linux.advocacy newsgroup, this is what the community thinks:
Roy Schestowitz is a classic narcissist and *yes* he *does* believe that he is above everyone else and that people won’t bother to check his sources and “facts”. He really does.
He has comments turned off on that story BTW. I guess even Schestowitz knows when he has screwed up really bad.
[...]
‘Boycott Novell’ is a sham laughingstock joke of a website. It’s not taken seriously by anyone except a handful of like-minded Linux dweebs. When’s the last time Novell contacted you to discuss anything? That’s what I thought.
You actually accept money to run Microsoft ads on the site – what kind of pathetic fraud does that?
There really is a whole lot more out there to read, if you are interested.
I think we can conclude the story here with a personal email I received just today from a prominent member of the Linux development community who I shall not name.
Hello,
Just wanted to point out that the conspiracy theorists at BoycottNovell do not represent the “community”. Just like the Unabomber did not represent “America”.
[...]
As long as you do not believe we are all wackos like those idiots, I felt it was worth pointing that out.
Update: Wow. I never expected my article to get close to 2000 page views in the few days since it was published (I know it’s not a big deal to many blogs, but for my humble blog, it is).
Anyway, here are some other reactions to my article (and to BN) from elsewhere that I found. I won’t extract any quotes here, but please feel free to see what others in the community have to say.
There is a discussion page for this article on Linux news website Lxer. The OpenSUSE forum discussion thread is here. And how can we possibly have an article about Boycott Novell without including any reactions from the Novell community?
3 Trackbacks
You can leave a trackback using this URL: http://armchairtheorist.com/the-curious-case-of-boycott-novell/trackback/
[...] the original here: The Curious Case of Boycott Novell Bookmark It Hide Sites $$('div.d2749').each( function(e) { [...]
[...] This is my chance to give my opinions to the article featured here: http://armchairtheorist.com/2009/07/21/the-curious-case-of-boycott-novell [...]
[...] out this post I wrote last week. If you scroll through the 235 comments there, notice that I was able to pull in [...]
136 Comments
Schestowitz does more than just accept money from running Microsoft adds on his ‘for profit’ website. Take a look at his resume (CV) sometime. For someone who claims to be so anti-Microsoft he sure lists an awful lot of Microsoft products and technologies on his resume.
He seems to believe that Microsoft is bad and evil except when Microsoft is used to put money into his pocket.
Hehe… I didn’t even realize that.
“As most people reading here already know, I work for Microsoft as a technology evangelist. …
Keep that in mind as you sit down, relax, and listen as I tell you a story…”
Well, you may as well just stop there.
Hey, read and use as much as you like.
All my content here is licensed under Creative Commons, after all.
This is nothing but a personal attack against Schestowitz. All those writings about Schestowitz where written by fellow M$ shills.
Quite telling that you have to rely on gossip and personal attacks.
How professional!
Yeah! M$ Shill!
http://wp.colliertech.org/cj/?p=237
I think my writing is a lot more objective and my tone much less subdued that anything published this past week on Boycott Novell.
If you think this is a personal attack, then what do you call those “articles” on Boycott Novell? Investigative journalism?
I can’t do anything about the quotes. These are true quotes found in the wild when I searched for “Boycott Novell” on Google. And they weren’t buried on page 36 or anything either. They were generally on the first couple pages.
And of course, you would have proof that all those writings about Roy which I quoted above were written by my fellow MS (oh, I’m sorry – M$) shills, don’t you?
NO U!
[quote]I think my writing is a lot more objective and my tone much less subdued that anything published this past week on Boycott Novell.[/quote]
I happen to disagree, you stated that you are a Microsoft Technical Evangelist. Which means that your POV is biased no matter how.
Your job is to promote Microsoft technology, no matter how bad it sucks and to denigrate everything and every person who opposes against Microsoft.
[quote]If you think this is a personal attack, then what do you call those “articles” on Boycott Novell?[/quote]
IIRC you started these attacks, not Schestowitz. He merely responded to your attacks.
[quote]I can’t do anything about the quotes.[/quote]
These quotes where written by Gary “Flatfish” Stewart, Tim Smith, Erik Funkenbush, Hadron Quark and other Microsoft Evangelists under pseudonyms on ether Usenet, BoycottNovell, Digg or Slashdot.
[quote]And of course, you would have proof that all those writings about Roy which I quoted above were written by my fellow MS (oh, I’m sorry – M$) shills, don’t you?[/quote]
Yes I do, see the above!
“IIRC you started these attacks, not Schestowitz. He merely responded to your attacks.”
If posting a comment highlighting alternative arguments constitutes an attack, then yes, I started the attack.
“These quotes where written by Gary “Flatfish” Stewart, Tim Smith, Erik Funkenbush, Hadron Quark and other Microsoft Evangelists under pseudonyms on ether Usenet, BoycottNovell, Digg or Slashdot.”
Like I said, where’s the proof?
[quote]Like I said, where’s the proof?[/quote]
I gave the prove above. All of these persons I named, are very well known Microsoft Astroturfers (Shills/Evangelists) on Usenet.
Of course you simply ignore that fact.
First off, I will say that it probably didn’t help your case any that you didn’t reveal right away that you worked for Microsoft. Somebody else who works for Microsoft responded to one of my blog posts, and guess how it probably looked to others who may have been reading it? Probably not very good. I responded, and gave the person the benefit of the doubt (though the IP address came right out of Redmond). The point is this: being honest about where you work when commenting on blogs and blog posts related to computers and software can go a long way in gaining trust, especially due to past abuses that came as a result of decisions made by business executives.
As for Penguin Pete, he is what I would consider a false rebel. He made false claims about one Ken Starks in regards to an attempt to advertise Tux on a racing car. You’ll notice that his site has Google Ads on it. He is only thumping his chest for site traffic.
Thanks Thomas, for your comment. And thanks for the heads-up on Penguin Pete.
I agree with you. However, it was never my intention to obfuscate my identity, like I described in the post above.
Unless I overwhelmingly hear otherwise from the community, I still maintain that it’s common accepted practice to leave a URL in the comment box which directs interested users to your blog or what not where you can give a full disclosure of who you are. I rarely see any blogger, frankly, that discloses who they work for in every comment they leave on every blog post.
In hindsight, perhaps I should of made my About page clearer on who I worked for. I have since remedied that. Perhaps since this was the first time I left a comment on BN, so as a newcomer I should of been more careful about disclosure. Again, I will remember this.
Regardless, after hanging out at BN for a whole week, I seriously doubt any “trust” would have been gained even if I did a full disclosure in my original comment. If anything, it would start the ad hominem attacks earlier, since there is less research on me that Roy needed to do.
Anyway, we also have to ask ourselves. If it truly was my intention to astroturf, would I use my real name and URL or would I post anonymously under a fake identity?
This is what happens when you make such disclosures:
Thanks, this was a great read.
Here’s the true Roy Schestowitz:
“Now, if only we had faced that guy behind the nym, we’d leave him with a
couple of black eyes and no penis, assuming he even has one.”
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/0832be5ef216a3cb?hl=en&dmode=source&output=gplain
Amazing. He actually published those statements on a public newsgroup?
Yes Jon. Read the ‘Path’ header. The post was from Manchester University, just like this one:
http://www.mathworks.ch/matlabcentral/newsreader/view_original/159910
You fail again Flatfish and of course your fellow M$ Shill (“professional” Evangelist) supports you.
You are the lowest scum of the Earth!
Well said ml2mst. Those M$ Astroturfers are very sleazy.
Yup. Way to add to the discussion, guys…
I agree with timestandstill.
Mr Wong, I have written a response that was (IMO) far too large for your comments section. Maybe you would do me the courtesy of visiting mine?
Regards
Goblin
http://www.openbytes.wordpress.com
I have visited and responded to your blog post. Thanks for the tip about Linsux.org
Looks to me like Roy Schestowitz has totally lost it. And it’s really too bad that he lost it on you. You seem nice enough. But….
There are reasons why people suspect MSFT employees of shilling and astroturfing. They’ve done it. A lot. Sorry to be blunt, but that’s the way it is.
http://inlumineconsulting.com:8080/website/msft.shillling.html
Very honestly, what do you expect rational people to think of comments from MSFT employees? What do you expect crazies to think?
I’ve not experienced any “shilling” or “astroturfing” involving MSFT employees aside from Roy tossing baseless accusations. And the site you linked is 404′ing.
Well, I learned this week that it’s no use to engage with the BN crowd. They just see the scarlet ‘M$’ letters on your chest, and dismiss (or even put down) what you say, regardless what it is. Some will stop there, but some will continue on and on and attack your character and call you names.
If my other MS colleagues have astroturfed in the past before, that is unfortunate. And that is a burden and stigma that the rest of us have to carry with us.
Jon. What happens (and you probably noticed) is that because of all the abuses and illegal, underhanded and sleazy bussiness and marketing tricks people in the FLOSS side of IT have become very aggresive and tend to take anyone who work for MS as a pathological liar and deceiver who cannot be trusted in anything. I had that same thing happen when my BSD entusiastic friends (I use OpenSUSE 11.2m4 and FreeBSD 7.0) learned that I like the college’s MSCE training chick (She’s about my age). They called me sold-out and other stuff, and when I asked why they told me that I sold out to MS by hanging around the college’s MSCE chick. It actually took me a full week to convince them that she is not the murderous monster they pre-assume (Without even knowing her at all), but a nice and kind girl.
Haha… that’s hilarious!
This is great fun isn’t it? MS evangelist vs. psychotic delusionalist. Who to believe? There is too much kool-aid to go around for everyone. People are people. I happen to believe in “Free Software” the FOSS, FLOSS kind. But I really like and use C#. So what do I do? I advocate cross-platform development from small embedded Linux devices to Ubuntu to windows 200x server. My customers make the choice on what OS (obviously I’d like them to use RH or Ubuntu). I just wish MS would hurry up and sue
Jon, welcome to the jungle!
Jae
jaebird: I told you! it’s c♯!
Thanks! It sure is hot here in the jungle.
My personal opinion – I do think this is no long a world where it either has to be all Windows or all Linux. The market I believe is big enough to support both camps comfortably and peacefully.
For every person you can find that swears to never touch Windows, there is likewise an organization that will never adopt an OS for key production systems without the largest software company in the world to blame if anything screws up.
The key to me is really interoperability and co-existence. Frankly, which data center today is not a mix of both Linux and Windows? And MS releasing the Linux kernel code, even if it’s to assist Hyper-V compatibility, is the right step towards this harmonious interoperability and co-existence.
Zealots must position themselves as black or white. They refuse to entertain the thought of working side-by-side and growing the market together.
I really do not like that voices like Roy’s become the voice for the FOSS community.
I think Lefty put it well:
the above is from http://discuss.itwire.com/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=14668#p52022
Microsoft is not one big friendly family, it is a big company. As with all companies, money is given the highest prioitry.
Can I say BN is a horrible site? Yes I can.
Can I say Microsoft is entirely innocent? No I can’t. A lot has been done to sabotage Linux, or it’s public perception. I hold BN responcible for really ruining my day sometimes, I hold Microsoft responcible for trying to destroy something (in my opinion) that is better.
Hear, Hear. Microsoft has historically done some awful things to the F/OSS community. It seems to be coming around, and I do what I can to help with it. But I don’t trust the management fully… yet.
Fair enough, and I can even appreciate the fact that the perception may not even be unfounded.
As I explained to a commentator above, I think we don’t need to position ourselves as either black or white. Most of us are a shade of grey (I did come from IBM before joining MS after all
).
Interoperability and harmonious co-existence is the key. And I am glad Microsoft understands that too, as witnessed by their release of the Linux kernel code. Yes, no doubt it assists Hyper-V compatibility, but it is the right step towards interoperability and co-existence.
“even going as far as accusing Microsoft of bribery and vandalism (I’m not kidding – read the article)”
So ? what’s new ? I’m not kidding either, read the articles, the leaked internal memos, the justice decisions….
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9033701/Microsoft_admits_Swedish_employee_promised_incentives_for_Open_XML_support
http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/buy-cheat-steal-and-lie-ooxml-story
http://topicmaps.wordpress.com/2008/04/18/the-norway-vote-what-really-happened/
http://www.universal-interop-council.org/node/29
I can’t really comment on the whole OOXML vs. ODF debate that blew by last year, since during that time I was not with Microsoft.
In fact, at that time I was with IBM Lotus, who as most people know is a big proponent of ODF.
All I will say is this. I agree with my ex-IBM colleague Stephan that yes, it is a good thing to have multiple “standards” (just like we have inches and centimeters), cause it gives users choices. And I challenge anyone who can claim that having choice is not good.
However, I also concede that the way the OOXML standard was fast-tracked may have been a little… well, peculiar.
The problem I have with the multiple standards is that it can cause problems. For instance, take the spacecraft traveling to Mars that was lost because one engineer (I believe) used the wrong measurement system. And after all, isn’t that what “standards” are all about?
For example, what if there were two standards for TCP/IP? Which would you choose? At some point one of the two will go away.
The important part, IMHO, is that the standards are open, and that everyone can use them fairly and equally, whether they be from RH, Novell, or Microsoft.
Just my $.02
I agree, Dave.
And from all indications so far, both ODF and OOXML standards are open, and everyone can use them fairly and equally.
Thanks for your comment.
Jon said:
“I can’t really comment on the whole OOXML vs. ODF debate that blew by last year, since during that time I was not with Microsoft.
In fact, at that time I was with IBM Lotus, who as most people know is a big proponent of ODF.”
During the OOXML debacle, I was not working for either Microsoft nor IBM. Yet I don’t see how that is relevant. Is cupboard love your only approach to reality ?
“it is a good thing to have multiple “standards” (just like we have inches and centimeters)”
First, ‘we’ don’t have inches and centimeters. You may, but I have only centimeters and thankfully none of these idiotic dark-age vestigial units.
In fact unless you live in the United States, Myanmar or Liberia, THE ‘standard’ is the metric system.
As indicated by another poster a benefit of the US being the last bastion of British Imperial Units was the loss of ‘Mars Climate Observe’ by the NASA (a $327 millions dollars ‘benefit’)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter
That being said, the point was not on the merit, or lack thereof, of MSXML, but on the method used by Microsoft to get it ‘approved’ by ISO. Methods that illustrate that your feigned shock at the notion that one might accuse Microsoft of bribery is quite dis-genuine.
If Microsoft indeed “bribed” anyone during the OOXML, I’m sure there will be legal action taken with the necessary proof which will be surfaced.
If it was such a slam dunk case as all these articles imply, I’m sure legal charges would have been brought up against Microsoft over the OOXML case already.
Let’s wait and see. I really don’t know either way, and know too little about the situation to give a fair comment and assessment.
BTW, apparently Lotus Symphony now supports OOXML documents as well. Glad to see even ODF supporters like IBM Lotus supporting OOXML.
“If Microsoft indeed “bribed” anyone during the OOXML, I’m sure there will be legal action taken with the necessary proof which will be surfaced.”
They did, and it has.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/136599/microsoft_pressed_swedish_partners_to_vote_for_open_xml.html
Oh, and there is a EU investigation under way… it’ll takes times, but they’ll eventually nailed them.
Lebanon, Turkey, Cyprus, and Trinidad & Tobago, who register to p-Member status just prior to the OOXML vote, bailed out merely months after the BRM.
On the anecdote side, the way Cyprus went along to decide to vote ‘Yes’ without reservation on OOXML is quite telling.
First they upgraded their status to P(articipating)-Member at the last minute, then send email to ask for input from local business. Microsoft and other small microsoft-only dev shop responded ‘that’s good’.
The Cyprus Standard office admit that it is extremely doubtful that any of them ever read the proposed standard… (But they didn’t need to, Big-Brother Microsoft had a pre-filled form for them, like in Norway and other countries)
The Cyprus Standard body did not have the resource nor the time to do an adequate review of the 6000+ pages of the proposed standard , yet they registered as P-Member and vote yes, without review…. then as soon as the vote became final, they dropped out of P-Member status….
It is no coincidence that Cyprus has an annual GDP less than half of Microsoft annual revenue. Microsoft make in annual profit 4 time the Cyprus state annual budget.
@shmget
Like I said, if there is an EU investigation underway (your article didn’t indicate as such), let the process run its course and we can save all our commentary until the time when there is a undisputed conclusion.
The way I interpreted the article is that it was a stupid and brainless act by an employee which made a mistake. His mea culpa was quoted in the article as well:
Being, relatively anonymous here, so take this with as bigger grain of salt as required for any anonymous comment.
I have had my own online community shilled by Micrososft employees, trying to push Windows Vista. Schestowitz isn’t entirely wrong in thinking that it does happen, what he — and his close friend, and Slashdot in-joke Twitter — get entirely wrong is thinking that everyone who holds an opinion different to their own fall into this category. If you’re into philosophy at all, this is what Isaiah Berlin called Positive Liberty, and may the Flying Spaghetti Monster save us all if Schestowitz ever gets to be Prime Minister.
I am personally no fan of Micrososft, I use a GNU/Linux environment on all my computers, I work on a high-profile Free software project, I will even try to guide people away from Windows onto GNU/Linux where possible. However, I believe Schestowitz to be the most batshit-insane, paranoid zealot in the community.
As much as one anonymous coward can speak for the whole community: Roy Schestowitz is not only unrepresentative of, but is a liability to, the Free software community.
Fair enough. That’s a balanced view that I can appreciate.
Personally, I respect everyone’s personal choice of technologies. Whatever works for you, works.
All I am appealing to the community (both FOSS and MS) for is for the zealotry to stop. You don’t have to be either black or white. It’s OK to be a shade of grey.
If your community was shilled by Microsoft employees before, that is unfortunate and I’m sorry. That will be a burden that the rest of us at MS who actually want to engage in discussion will have to bear.
Now there’s a noble cause, I would like to see you succeed, but don’t hold much hope. Oh well, one step at a time, just having (friendly) representatives around from Microsoft will help improve the company’s image.
Here’s something that may cheer or depress you in equal quantities:
http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/93nc6/could_we_get_this_spammer_blocked_please/
Roy Schestowitz has been using a http://my.opera.com account for the purposes of spamming Reddit and other social networking sites with links to Boycott Novell.
Once, and I forget when and where, Schestowitz and Twitter (who has multiple Slashdot accounts for the purposes of pushing his anti-Microsoft agenda) were asked why they think it’s acceptable to act the way they do, the answer was that Microsoft does the same thing, so they have to work — apparently like some kind of Russian revolutionaries fighting a bitter class war — to get the truth out.
I hope you can see the tragedy of their lives and work, it’s like Demons the sick-comedy version. They failed to notice that two wrongs don’t make a right, and worse, their efforts at undermining various online communities have been far more concerted and ruthless than anything Micrososft has done (maybe with the exception of undermining the OOXML approvals process).
Apology accepted, thank you. It was just one incident and we get a lot worse from devious and desperate hosting companies.
Microsoft releasing n-lines of open-source code is going to cost Linux in the long-term, just as it did to IBM last century and countless other companies, to whom, Microsoft seemed like a good friend. It is probably the sneakiest attack on Linux yet.
I would request RedHat, Novell (sorry, cannot really request Novell) and other Linux companies getting into the enterprise space to not trust this code, even if its open-source because its out there to undermine freedom in the most subversive way.
That is a pretty pessimistic view, isn’t it?
Why is releasing code that helps with interoperability and co-existence a bad thing? If anything, doesn’t this help *drive* Linux adoption in the enterprise, especially those that have standardized on free Hyper-V for visualization?
Despite what many people think, this doesn’t have to be a bipolar world, where you are either with us or against us (Linux vs. Windows). Most people (and organizations, for that matter), are some shade of grey.
Why? Oh come on, you can’t be that ignorant. But, just in case, I’ll say it. It’s because the given code could be a patent trap.
As for BN, I find it entertaining and a good source of information. I can filter out the propaganda, just like I do for that from Microsoft. (In the latter case, it doesn’t leave much left!)
Yes, of course. That makes perfect sense.
Microsoft releases code to Linux themselves which they will at a later date claim a patent infringement over.
Brilliant. I’m sure that will hold up in court just fine.
How sarcastic. Ever heard of Rambus? Rambus promoted ways of handling computer memory into an official industry standard. Later, after everyone was using these techniques, they sued all of the memory manufacturers. And guess what? They won their lawsuits!
@torpedo8
You are confused between open source and official industry standard.
If I publicly give you a story I wrote to publish in your anthology of short stories, making it clear up front that my story is a donation to you with nothing expected to return, and five years later, I sue you for copy write violations and for ripping off my story.
Does that make sense to you?
Apple, meet Orange.
Yes it would hold up like it did with Rambus.
An no, you copyright example is not adequate. Copyright is not Patent.
you can publish all you want under GPLV2 and still retain your patent rights (in the countries that recognized software patent – that is)
BTW, no, that will not ‘help’ linux in the enterprise… It will help windows by making windows more capable of hosting linux-based image, and then Microsoft will make sure that virtualizing it’s OS under Linux becomes a nightmare (license-wise and technically wise).
—
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it (George Santayana)
—
“There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.” (G. W. Bush, 2002)
@shmget
Fine. If you are so convinced, show us a precedent in court or anywhere else before where a patent holder donates code to open source only to sue for patent infringements later and have that be ruled in favor of the patent holder.
Anyway, if you really are so against Microsoft’s code donation, please start lobbying the Linux community to not accept it, since apparently the Linux kernel maintainer thinks it’s a good move.
The fun facts about this is most here miss.
Yes BN reporting is bias against MS. But like all reporting it has documents behind it.
MS has done a lot of things to cause bias against them.
Mind you there are documents that MS does have paid astro turfers and have used them in the past.
That is the problem.
Having documents and sources are one thing, but it’s the misinterpretation and deceptive misrepresentation of the facts that make BN less than credible.
Take a look at this headline, and then read the article and the sources within, and tell me whether it was a deceiving article or not.
Microsoft CEO Admits That Vista 7 is Just Vapourware, Opera Complaints About It
[...]“I work for Microsoft as a technology evangelist”
) This is just too good. I haven’t even bothered to read the rest of your article. Sorry. This is hypocrisy.
[...] “…to my surprise, the author accuses me of being a paid astroturfer and a Microsoft shill”
Working for Microsoft (regardless of title) != paid astroturfer and a Microsoft shill.
Particularly around what I do online in social media, which Microsoft does not ask me to do.
Not sure why is that so difficult to understand for some people? I guess it’s just simpler to think of the world as you are either Microsoft or non-Microsoft.
People believe that “technology evangelists” are paid to blog and use social media to spread the message. And Microsoft doesn’t have the cleanest record when it comes to PR ethics. Which would be the main reason for the outcry. Personally, I’m not seeing anything anonymous about it, so I’m leery of the “shill” business, but you’re obviously paid to portray Microsoft in a good light.
Maybe you should post some details about what your job entails?
Coincidentally, before this whole BN thing started, I wanted to do a post describing exactly what an “evangelist” (one of the most misunderstood professions in the tech industry today, IMO) at Microsoft actually does.
In the mean time, what Alex Lowe describes here is pretty close, although for each country and market, it would be slightly different.
http://blogs.msdn.com/alowe/archive/2004/02/07/69495.aspx
So, your job is not just representing Microsoft, but feedback to Microsoft about how the community views it. In that case, I’ve got a couple gold points I want to share with you.
Regarding patents: Microsoft has made past claims that Linux violates “hundreds” of Microsoft patents. It has to date refused to disclose these infringed patents. This is incorrect and under-handed behavior. It’s part of the reason why Microsoft gets so little respect. The appropriate thing to do (especially with a non-commercial association like Linux that isn’t playing the patent portfolio trading game) is to inform others about patent infringements and let them work around it. Waiting until your opponent gains market share to drop the bomb is a sign of profiteering. That’s what you’re suspected of.
You should do what you can to get enough supporters to disclose these patent issues. It would garner a world of credit to Microsoft if they’d be more open instead of dropping ominous threats. Bonus points if you can do it in a way that doesn’t involve an immediate (or a covert) lawsuit.
Regarding standards: The Office team switched to Word for HTML editing, disregarding the fact that it renders HTML like a mentally-challenged five-year old. People were upset that it didn’t even approach proper standards, but the Office team danced around the issue with misinformation, claiming that there’s no standard for HTML in email. Which is bunk, because there’s one standard for HTML (wherever it is) and Word doesn’t follow it. I posted a rather scathing comment on their “blog” that was “moderated” out twice (probably because it accused them of shuffling buttons and menu items around instead of getting work done). They posted a rather subtle “Yeah, whatever, guys” response and closed comments.
No one likes this conclusion except for the Office team. The only people who aren’t upset are the ones who consider Office to be insecure or a waste of time. And it’s silly, too, since you have online Office programs in the works (which won’t be rendering on the client end from within Word). Get them to render HTML right.
Implement full standards, both recognized ones and de-facto ones. Anything less is disrespectful to us, your products, and your developers.
@WhatAnAss
I never really intended for this thread to become a place to gather feedback on Microsoft products, but appreciate your feedback.
it’s difficult for folks to do if they refuse to read your writing or opinions which might differ from their own, Jon. Duh.
Please post the version of your about page that was up when you posted on BN. I seem to recall that you made a clarification to it, which makes it difficult to see exactly how much information you originally gave.
You are correct in your Reddit comment about the clarification I made on my About page. Two changes:
1. I hyper-linked the “biggest software company in the world” to Microsoft’s URL
2. I added the disclaimer section at the bottom, just in case it wasn’t clear earlier (which is partially my bad)
Google cache may not have it, but Bing cache does.
http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=%22http+armchairtheorist+com+about%22&d=76391898423834&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=4e62e489,cc9337d4
Confirmed. The cached copy still has sufficient Microsoft references for the able-minded to figure it out. I guess I’ll convert the cached copy into an image, later, to show the trolling masses. Thanks for pulling that up. It does worlds to increase your credibility.
In the future, please take note that even making small in-line adjustments to a page under controversy can be considered as a cover up by the paranoid (because they can’t confirm your word). Make sure that if you make any changes, you preserve the previous copy and link to it from the new one.
Also, you should look into getting your About page (and others) cached at Archive.org and Google, too. Bing is gaining market share, but a lot of people (including myself) still don’t take it seriously. And your job description requires a bit of straddling the line in situations like these.
“I am a a technology evangelist working for the biggest software company in the world.” End of story. IMHO, you’re paid to spread FUD. Full stop. I think I’ve had my share of your kind of people on my website and since I’ve quite an archive of counter arguments, I’m usually able to fend of your kind of people with a well placed link. Sometimes I need an entire article.
But you’re a plague, like lobbyists. You’re paid because you work for a company that produces so many bad products, that they’re unable to build up a community of satisfied users to defend you. And that’s where the heart of the problem lies. Too many Linux users have used or continue to use your abysmal products themselves (so does BN, as you remarked yourself – and me for that matter) and turned away in disgust. They are not paid, they simply defend a product they LIKE – contrary to your kind of guys. It’s like women who married out of love and women who walk the street. (Note, this is a metaphore, not a designation).
Most of these people have firm roots in FOSS themselves and proud of their work. Not some anonymous guys who crank out code for a paycheck. I know the difference, believe me.
So before you try to climb that ethical hill take a long look at yourself.
I took that long look at myself and I like what I see.
I like the fact that I never comment on blog posts anonymously, and let my credibility back me up on whatever I say.
I also like the fact that even though I work for Microsoft, titles aside, my employer never dictate, police or govern how I wish to engage in social media (unless when there is confidential information involved).
I like the fact that I have my own opinions, and am not afraid to express them even if it’s not the company line.
If you are so eager and willing to lump me together with others under the stereotype of a “Microsoft technical evangelist” solely based on my employer and not what I say, then you are lumping yourself in the group of so-called FOSS zealots who fail to see anything else that is not black and white.
If someone defends Windows to the Linux community, they *must* be paid, because there is no way anyone can like that “abysmal product”, right?
It is probably shocking to you that there are people within Microsoft that like and contribute to FOSS, or that there are people in the FOSS community that like Windows and understands that there is a place for proprietary software in this world.
But no, FOSS zealots must go to war with everything that is anti-Microsoft. You are either with us or against us. You are either black or white.
The truth is, the majority of us in technology are a shade of grey.
Well, having had the experiences with the programs you so fiercely defend I could NOT look in the mirror and feel fine.
Ans since you ARE a technical evangelist it’s not more than logical that you end up in the same bin.
Wow, every once in a while you divert from the company policies. It must be when you write “Hey, Linux is a lot better than the rubbish we’re selling”, I’m sure.
And obviously, there are people within MS that like FOSS. That is logical when you have a company that large.
The bottom line still is that FOSS completely invalidates the business model you’ve used so far. And that demands the business practices MS has used so far. And you’re part of it. You want any links or does an average listing of Wikipedia suffice? If I were you I would repeat that long look in the mirror again. Just don’t say you didn’t know and don’t say you weren’t part of it. In Europe we have experience with that kind of people.
If all fails, get the labels out. Yes, you can call me bigot, zealot, anything you like. Just pull a product out of your sleeve that blows me dead out of the water. The rest you produce is just WORDS, or FUD as we zealots tend to call it.
I know all about grey, having a degree where that matters. If you won’t try to paint black white we’ll get along just fine.
Quick advise, don’t call me zealot. Labels tend to get confusing. I’m just a Linux user. Started off in 2000 when Windows NT was just too little, too expensive, too restrictive, too light for any serious work.
Whether you like it or not, you made yourself a zealot the moment you wrote your first sentence and essentially dismissed me, my arguments, and characterized me as someone who is paid to spread FUD, solely by who I work for.
If you want to complain about labels, you should look that long look into the mirror yourself first. There is more to me than just being a “technical evangelist” for Microsoft, although to you, it’s probably just more convenient to lump everyone together in the same “bin”.
“plague”, “lobbyists”, “women who walk the streets”, “that kind of people” – Yup, keep those stereotypes and labels coming.
Makes that black or white world of yours so much easier to defend, doesn’t it?
You may have been harassed by other folks on your website before. My sympathies to you. But frankly, that is irrelevant to me. I don’t know you; you don’t know me; we haven’t even spoken before today.
Moderate your blog comments if you need to.
If nothing that Microsoft produces blows you out of the water, so be it. Use what you want to use. No one is forcing you to use something that is too restrictive for your “serious work”.
I don’t take exception if you think Microsoft’s business practices are questionable. After all, it is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.
However, the next time you feel like you need to use ad hominem attacks, think about the story of the black pot and the black kettle.
IMO, it’s a waste of time engaging with you, really. Time better spent tending to our customers who actually don’t mind paying for our “too restrictive for serious work” software.
Quick advise for you as well. Unless you have something constructive to add to the discussion, I suggest you go back and continue to convince your Dutch community how laughable Windows 7 is instead of spending your precious time here responding to a humble blog post.
Oh, and I forgot to mention it in my previous comment, but +1 point to you for using your real name and URL.
Wow, several investigations by DoJ is “opinion”. Several fines for those sound business practices by the EU is “opinion”. Man, you’re a good spin doctor..
“Man, you’re a good spin doctor..”
As good as you are trying to convince others that Windows 7 is laughable, I suppose.
Johnathan, I wanted to personally thank you for getting involved with BoycottNovell and I hope you stick around for awhile. I had hoped for some time that someone from Microsoft might step in and represent the company, even though I believe the more people get involved with Roy’s website the more he feeds off the attention. Still, there comes a time when you just have to take a moment to do the right thing. That’s why I often stop by and post under the name “Yggdrasil”.
Roy, his website, and the people who support it serve as a prime example of Linux/FOSS zealotry to the highest degree. They are angry, irrational, vindictive, and most of all dishonest. I’m a teacher, an agnostic, and a constant inquisitor. That’s why my blood boils when I encounter Linux zealots. Many of them will take every opportunity to lie in order to demonize Microsoft and praise Linux. Therein should lie the red flag for every rational, thinking person. It simply defies the laws of probability that one side would be 100% wrong and the other 100% right. Yet, as with politics and religion, people blindly pledge alliance to either one side or the other. There are enough people in life who lie to us in order to reach their goal, and in that respect Linux zealots are no exception. They simply want more people to join in their crusade, and they will do anything to be sure that we do. Besides enjoying Microsoft products, the fact that it is a PRODUCT and not a CULT is exactly why I appreciate the company as I do.
I think it’s important for you to focus on the man rather than the message. Roy Schestowitz has devoted his life to hating Microsoft. He publishes anywhere from 5 to 10 articles a day. Floods Usenet groups with Spam linking back to his website. Talks in an IRC chatroom where the topic usually revolves around, you guessed it, Microsoft being the root of all evil. Roy eats, breaths, and sleeps hatred. As a zealot, he will often spin, stretch, distort, or outright fabricate the “truth” he spreads with his so called “journalism”. You could spend time correcting each and every offense, but I believe the better way is to reveal the deep flaws in Roy’s character. I believe his bias and hatred border on a form of mild mental illness and if people begin to see that then would be better able to discredit him.
One thing I do know is that you can’t beat Roy. Nobody can. In his position, the more resistance he encounters the more vindicated he feels. All you can do is reveal his weaknesses for others to observe. A perfect example is when Roy said the predicted adoption numbers of Windows 7 represented a failure. Then you asked him what percentage would be considered a success by his standards? He refused to answer. Bingo! That’s the kind of brilliant questions you need. Any question for which Roy’s answer could in any way be considered a positive outlook on Microsoft, Roy will simply refuse to answer it. The adoption of Windows 7 could be 100% but Roy would still call it a failure. Reveal this irrational bias and illogical behavior to people as often as you can. Reveal him as the extremist he is. As a teacher, I can tell you that slowly people in this world are beginning to understand the problems that extremists from all walks of life represent to society as a whole.
Thanks Y, for dropping by and leaving your comment.
Your last paragraph is spot on. And is also the precise reason why I will probably withdraw from my participation on BN after this whole sh!tstorm is over.
What I’ve learned this past week from hanging out at BN is that it’s not worth discussing with the (majority) of the community there. The site is basically a feedback loop of endless Microsoft hate. The more people like me who go there and attempt to start a dialogue, the more credibility we are bringing the site.
What started out as an exercise in curiosity as to why BN is the way it is, ended up with me learning quite a lot about the FOSS community in general.
IMO, the good news is that BN appears to not have any credibility with anyone or anything important in technology.
The bad news is that unfortunately, BN gives moderates or those who don’t know a perception that the FOSS community is all as extreme in views as they are. As many commentators mentioned above, BN gives the entire FOSS community a big black mark. Which is sad, because all the FOSS people I speak with in real life (remember, I worked for IBM before joining Microsoft) are all nice, thoughtful people who are a joy to engage with.
We may not always agree, but we also don’t accuse each other of deception and spin.
Frankly, it’s been a fun week for me. But like I said, after the comments stop arriving on this blog post and this post becomes yet another guy’s opinion archived in the nether regions of the Internet, I’m done with BN. I have more productive things I can be doing with my spare time.
Jonathan Wong said…
“The key to me is really interoperability and co-existence”
M$ has always done exactly the opposite to keep competitors out and customers locked in (The latest Linux driver release is a sign of weakness in that area not philanthropy) and you wonder why M$ is one of the most disliked and untrustworthy companies there is. This is my second and last interaction with you, as what is the point of talking to someone who is paid to talk up M$ whether he believes what he is saying or not?
If you still insist that whatever I say must be what Microsoft wants me to say, despite my numerous claims of the contrary, then so be it.
Social media is all about credibility, and it’s obvious to me that in your eyes I have no credibility because of who I work for. Again, that’s your opinion and your choice to make. I won’t waste time convincing you otherwise, because you have already made up your mind.
I will say this though:
I don’t think anyone can argue that Microsoft’s Linux code contribution – regardless whether there are any ulterior motives or whether it’s solely to promote Hyper-V – *does not* help promote compatibility, interoperability and possibly even help drive Linux adoption for enterprises standardized on Hyper-V for virtualization.
Interoperability means choice for customers, and I don’t think anyone can argue that choice is bad. Can you?
(Please don’t answer, since I wouldn’t want you to break your pledge of not interacting with me again.)
OK. I’ll answer for him, since you don’t seem to want to hear from him. With all of your bleating about open debate and reasonableness, I’d have thought that you’d welcome his reply.
I can argue that choice is bad if one of the choices that is likely to be made is really a patent trap. Is Microsoft abandoning all rights to sue if developers use the code that has been open-sourced? The answer is “no”, of course.
Sure, Microsoft would like to promote “compatibility” and “interoperability” as long as they get paid handsomely and irrevocably for it.
satipera was the one that said his comment was the last interaction he wanted to have with me. Of course I would welcome his reply if he chose to go back on his pledge.
As I responded to you earlier in this thread, I cannot see how Microsoft’s case can possibly hold up in court.
I mean, it’s one thing if a third-party developer develops open source code which infringed patents and MS made a claim on it, and a very different thing if *Microsoft* developed the open source code themselves and subsequently makes a patent claim on it.
How ludicrous does that sound?
And please don’t use Rambus as an example. Don’t confuse open source (this case) with promoting your own wares as an industry standard (Rambus’ case).
Well, Jon, you aren’t very imaginative are you. First of all, it is you in your message farther above who is confused. A patent is not copyright. Repeat after me “A patent is not a copyright”. It’s true that the Microsoft donation clears the copyright issues but not the patent ones. Anyway, we find out today that at least one Microsoft GPL donation was done after it was disclosed to Microsoft that they had violated the GPL in producing that code. You can read about “Microsoft opened Linux-driver code after ‘violating’ GPL” at the Register.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/23/microsoft_hyperv_gpl_violation/
The truth seeps out. You can read even more about related issues at BN!
The Rambus analogy applies almost exactly despite your feeble protestations. Rambus secretly patented memory technologies even while they promoted the use of those technologies in a standard. They later sued the users of this standard for violating patent. (Remember, “A patent is not a copyright”.) The use of a standard is very much like the use of public software. You may not see the analogy, but the readers of this blog certainly will because the issues you raise are a distinction without a meaningful difference.
Even if it is granted (which I don’t) that Microsoft could not sue for patent violations, this doesn’t prevent other parties from suing based on still other patents that Microsoft doesn’t hold. These third parties can well be allied with Microsoft. From articles at BN, I learned that there is testimony that Microsoft guaranteed Baystar’s investment in SCO whose frivolous and baseless lawsuits made them the most hated technology company anywhere. How about Nathan Myhrvold, patent troll extraordinaire and former Microsoft employee? He could buy some of these undisclosed patents from Microsoft and do the suing himself.
Please don’t instruct me about what arguments that I can make when you cannot even distinguish between patent and copyright.
Don’t patronize me.
I know very well what the difference is between a patent and a copyright. My storybook example earlier for you was just an illustration of why I think a patent claim like that will never hold up in court, despite what Linux conspiracy theorists want to think. If you didn’t understand that, it’s unfortunate, and no big deal, frankly.
And since no one here is able to provide me of any precedent in court anywhere in the world where a patent holder donates code to open source only to sue for patent infringements later and have that be ruled in favor of the patent holder. That’s not a challenge, but I’m genuinely curious, and I would be happy to be proven wrong.
But since no one has shown me otherwise, I will stick to my assertion that there is no patent trap risk in a situation like this.
The use of a proprietary technology because an unscrupulous vendor is promoting it as an industry standard is certainly VERY different than a vendor donating source code under a GPL license (and thus giving up control of the code) to the community. Please give my blog readers more credit than that; they are intelligent enough to see the difference.
If you still don’t understand, let me try it this way:
I have a patent on the formula of finding the area of a circle. It’s pi * r ^ 2.
You have a complicated math formula you are trying to build in order to solve world hunger, but the part you get stuck on is finding out the area of a circle.
I tell you my circle area formula, and give you the right to use it in your complex world hunger formula. It works as expected, you complete your formula, and you solve world hunger. Everything is publicly documented.
Now, tell me on what grounds do I have to sue you for using my patented circle formula? Tell me which court in which land will possibly find in favor of me?
If you want to bring “third parties” into the discussion, that’s your choice. But at that stage it really is just paranoid conspiracy theories. But of course I would expect no less from the BN crowd.
Regardless under what pretenses or conditions the Linux code was donated, I still haven’t seen anyone make a convincing argument that the code being released *does not* help promote compatibility, interoperability and possibly even help drive Linux adoption for enterprises standardized on Hyper-V for virtualization.
Yes you tone is subdued. Yes there are problems with BN, I found possibly on the thread you were addressing that I couldn’t tell who was what it was all personal whining. So to me that is a good reason to lock certain comments down to avoid the continuing trail of you said he said you are nah nah na nah na. But I don’t expect that was the reason.
Overall the BN style is almost unreadable, so many links to other stories that it must surely be know that no one with a real job or any other interests has time to read it. So what you on the whole end up with is children (by approach and attitude not necessarily by age) and journo’s (some actually who qualify as them) writing for writings sake.
Waste of space.
After reading BN for about a week, I tend to agree.
Jeff Waugh from the GNOME foundation sums it up best, IMO:
> Folks, you decide for yourself whether BN and its community are obsessed and paranoid.
They are. But still there is enough valuable info and comment there.
> I can guess that Boycott Novell doesn’t have much (if any) credibility with anyone important in technology.
You have guessed the opposite – otherwise you wouldn’t be writing a lengthy polemics now.
> Folks, you decide for yourself whether BN and its community are obsessed and paranoid.
…
> In any case, as much as BN claims otherwise, it is certainly not a community,
Make up your mind. Also whether they are a community or not is irrelevant as long as there is interesting material on the site. Which is oft the case.
> I think my writing is a lot more objective and my tone much less subdued that anything published this past week on Boycott Novell.
Your tone is insidious. Note taken of your weasel phrasing about ‘this past week’.
> Most of us are a shade of grey…
Microsoft is an entity with 50000 people, most of whom are honest and capable and fair. Unfortunately, what matters is control. Since its beginning, Microsoft has been managed by a bunch of thugs. It will change one day, but the turn is still not visible on the horizon.
> I can’t really comment on … since during that time I was not with Microsoft.
How do you intend to do your job if you just skip over 25 years of abuse?
> Why is releasing code that helps with interoperability and co-existence a bad thing?
It is not a bad thing in general. You just have to consider the effects case-by-case. Microsoft wants virtualisation code in Linux that allows Windows to run Linux apps? Who benefits? Microsoft afforded $400m legal expenses in a 8 year fight against the European Commission to *hinder* Samba’s interoperability and co-existence with Windows networking.
Not true. I felt that I needed to respond on my own terms since I was attacked on the site. Also, I wanted to put the question out there that whether the way BN is run is the ideal way to run a advocacy website like that. If anything, I look at BN as more of a social media case study for me than an opponent.
It isn’t my fault that this post happened to get cross-posted all over the place and attracted the attention it did. (I only posted it on my Twitter and the COLA newsgroup, since I quoted them)
Thanks for pointing out my typo. I missed a word. What I meant to say is, “In any case, as much as BN claims otherwise, it is certainly not a open community”. I have edited the post to correct the error.
Explain why would that be insidious? My only exposure to BN has been what was published this past week starting from the Bing Fail article. Would it be right for me to generalize and comment on everything prior that I haven’t read?
So what do you think is the job that I’m supposed to do? And how would offering an opinion (whether a founded or unfounded one) about the time at Microsoft which I was not involved in help me do this job? Do you even know what I do at Microsoft? (hint: it’s not “shilling” and “astroturfing”)
Jon,
Your probably not reading these comments any longer but here’s my 2 cents:
I presume you are, as I am also, a well intentioned person. I am an open source and Linux evangelist, but I also use proprietary products (Microsoft & others) because I live/work in the real world. It comes down this; BN and many others around the world DO NOT TRUST Microsoft. I include myself in that group most, but not all, of the time. This is not an extreme view. Microsoft is a court convicted monopolist several times over. The arguable point is whether those same tactics continue today. In my opinion, they sometimes do. The process around OOXML approval at ISO is an example. It’s one thing to be a monopoly, it’s another to underhandedly or illegally abuse that monopoly position in the market to squash competition.
I also happen to believe BN can go too far is it’s criticism of MS and your posting here is an example of that. You stepped into a den of lions who give no quarter. Just as MS would purge the landscape of competitors, BN would do the same to MS.
I wish you well.
Thanks Rodd, for you comment.
And believe it or not, I do still continue to read each and every comment that arrives here, even those auto-populated from Reddit via BackType (although I’m slightly regretting it now).
I respect your opinion regarding Microsoft. Like I mentioned above, I will even concede that the way the OOXML standard was fast-tracked may have been a little… well, peculiar. Particularly since I was still firmly in the ODF camp with IBM when this whole thing happened last year.
While I can’t speak for the Microsoft of the past 25 years, I can speak for the Microsoft that I am familiar with today.
If Microsoft has lost the trust of our customers, partners and the overall tech community, that is unfortunately a burden which collectively the whole company has to bear. And we will work hard to earn back that trust. It’s ultimately up to our customers, partners, and the community to decide whether we have succeeded or not.
Thanks for the well wishes. Do drop by again.
“If Microsoft has lost the trust of our customers, partners and the overall tech community, that is unfortunately a burden which collectively the whole company has to bear. And we will work hard to earn back that trust.”
Hmm, wasn’t similar wording used on Port25 JUST before the patent case against TomTom was launched?
And TomTom decided that it was in their best interest to settle the case with Microsoft instead of pursuing their counter suits against Microsoft.
Your point being?
Patent trolling against the Linux kernel is not the best way to gain trust, Mono being the most obvious victim of these actions. How to gain trust:
- Promise not to make any patent claims against the Linux kernel in any form or shape to any entity using it. Do as IBM and Sun did: give ‘em away.
- Liberate Mono by extending the promise to the entire Mono suite.
Easy.
Ok, let the corporate legal babble commence.
I’m not a lawyer, so I can only refer you to what Matt Asay, lawyer and OSI board member has to say regarding RedHat’s recent demand that Microsoft should pledge to not sue Linux over patents.
RedHat says:
Matt’s response:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/98876/IBM_opens_500_patents_to_open_source_developers?taxonomyId=018
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/106099/IBM_Red_Hat_join_others_in_Linux_patent_venture
Microsoft is not on the list. I told you I have a fairly large link database.
Hans Bezemer
I’m sure most of the readers here are quivering in fear over the size of your link database. After all, how can anyone ever hope to win a debate online without a large link database?
It’s good to see my alma mater (IBM) do what it does to support the open source community. But before we get too carried away, do realize that 500 patents is only about 1% of the 42,000 patents IBM currently has (as a comparison, I think MS has about 8,500 patents). If I was Sam Palmisano, I’m pretty sure I won’t be releasing any of the ones with real commercial potential.
Anyway, since you didn’t disagree, I assume that you agree with Matt’s viewpoint that it doesn’t make fiduciary sense to declare that one will never, ever sue open-source developers over patent infringements.
No, I don’t agree. I think software patents are a plague. Informatics is closely liked to mathematics and – gash – mathematical algorithms CANNOT be patented. Note that patents were invented to allow little people to create something useful and get the returns on their investments (read the founding fathers rationale on that one). They were certainly not meant to be legal instruments to STOP invention.
Note that nowadays someone with a $150 device can create something that may violate some trivial invention like..
- A computer in a car (MS patent)
- Saving a filename in two different forms (MS patent)
- One click buying (Amazon)
Every single FOSS developer may run into these kinds of things – without knowing he actually violated anything. Patents were invented to protect significant investments, but hacking some algorithm you can do with a moment of enlightenment and a few lines of code.
There is a good reason why mathematics cannot be patented. And they apply to informatics too. FOSS actually boosted invention, because anyone can profit – amateurs and companies alike, just like in the scientific communion. The difference is that a good algorithm doesn’t require a lot of physical means to implement or produce. It shares these characteristics with mathematics.
Hans Bezemer
Like I stated below, for what it’s worth, I am not a big fan of software patents either, solely because I think it’s difficult to enforce in a clear-cut and unambiguous way. And that relates to what you mentioned about mathematics being tightly related to informatics. For any given algorithm, how do you know whether it’s innovation, or whether that’s just the natural optimized way to do something?
But as much as we have our own opinions, software patents (fortunately or unfortunately) do exist, and we just have to play by the rules. And we should not feel outraged or surprised if corporations (not restricted to just Microsoft) also play by the rules. Like Matt Asay said, they will be being irresponsible to their shareholders if they don’t take advantage of any patents they hold.
I believe freedom and innovation are important tenants the western world believes in greatly (disclaimer: I am Singaporean), but then again, so is capitalism.
Ultimately, everything Microsoft does will always be judged by the community at-large, which we also have to remember, also includes Microsoft’s partners, allies, customers, and developer community.
Trust and PR is the best check and balance we have against unnecessarily excessive patent litigation from corporations today.
Hi,
I’m a long-time Linux user, part-time developer and part-time Linux evangelist. I have a lot of problems with Microsoft and its products, both professionally and ethically. Keeping that in mind:
I’m totally on your side with this. What BN does has nothing to do with objectivity, social media or fairness for that matter. It is a hate site and its authors are insane. Thanks a lot for your collection of proof that this site has nothing to do with linux evangelism.
On a sidenote: I personally know people who work for marketing agencies (in Europe) paid by Microsoft to troll in forums and blogs. You and your work certainly do not belong in this category.
Keep on writing and thanks for the insight.
Appreciate your comment, dakira.
If what you say is true, my personal opinion is that it’s unfortunate that marketing agencies troll in forums and blogs in Europe on behalf of Microsoft. I do believe that most of Microsoft’s products are strong enough on their own merits to eliminate the need for that kind of behavior.
Like I mentioned above, if Microsoft lost the trust of the community because of actions like that, it’s unfortunately a burden that the whole entire company has to bear to win back that trust.
More pro-tips:
-Your page has problems with nested comments. In both Firefox and IE8. Might want to fix that.
-the “IE8 challenge” should not ask people for their mailing address unless they win. What are you going to do with the losing mailing addresses? I run into these things from the Microsoft giveaways a lot. Seriously, y’all need someone with a much better external POV than what you’ve got going on right now.
These points I can address.
- Yes, the nested comments thing is a problem of my Vigilance theme (it’s an awesome theme, BTW). I will need to hack some PHP to get it fixed. Thanks.
- The IE8 Challenge contest is for Singapore only, and under Singapore statutory law, online lottery winners must be notified by post. So we had no choice but to make entering a valid street address a prerequisite for entering into the draw.
If you want to play to game but don’t feel comfortable putting in a mailing address (or if you are not in Singapore), it’s alright. You can still enter gibberish in the field (it won’t validate), but it just means you are not eligible for the prize.
From: Roy Schestowitz
Message-ID: 1339164.aJeHaPSEjX@schestowitz.com
[quote]
You know, being a little paranoid here, I’m beginning to wonder if PJ’s
burnout (“health break”) is a result of ongoing stomach illness that comes
from deliberate food poisoning. No, I’m not suggesting someone is putting
something in her food. I never said anything like this. No way.
[/quote]
@Jon
I don’t know you personally, so it’s entirely possible you’re a perfectly nice guy, but the fact remains that you not only work for Microsoft, one of the world’s most disreputable corporations, but you actually occupy one of the most sinister positions within that corporation – Technology Evangelist. And just to be clear, it isn’t the evangelism itself that’s the problem, it’s the company you evangelise for.
So when someone who works for Microsoft, and especially a “TE”, posts to a pro-Linux site like BuycottNovell, without clearly disclosing his conflicts of interest, then naturally there’s going to be a backlash.
What else did you expect?
Are you aware that if you’d been an EU citizen then you’d actually have broken the law, specifically the EU’s Directive on Unfair Business-to-Consumer Commercial Practices?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7287413.stm
And even the FTC in the US is headed towards similar legislation:
http://openbytes.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/the-silence-of-the-shills/
Also, I take exception to the word “hater”, since it implies something irrational and unwarranted. Dissent against Microsoft and it’s supporters is very much warranted, and no more irrational than dissent against any other criminal or unethical organisation.
Still confused?
Maybe this will enlighten you (especially the first two):
http://boycottnovell.com/2008/01/30/evangelism-is-war-memo/
http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/index.html
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090619161307529
http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/Dirty_Tricks_history
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107100653
http://boycottnovell.com/microsoft-critique-resources/
http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft#Criticism
http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/
http://boycottnovell.com/2009/01/10/edgi-continued-dumping-vs-gnu/
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_findings.htm
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/03/19/microsoft_killed_dell_linux_states/
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/300590_software22.html
http://www.computerworlduk.com/management/government-law/public-sector/news/index.cfm?newsid=6124&pn=2
http://www.os2world.com/content/view/14871/2/
http://news.softpedia.com/news/One-Laptop-Per-Child-Sabotaged-by-Microsoft-and-Intel-71941.shtml
http://slated.org/microsoft_kills_baby
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/12/16/xbox_scratched_discs_updated/
http://thepopulist.wordpress.com/2003/10/10/the-trials-of-microsoft/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_antitrust_case
http://www.msversus.org/
If you can read all that and still fail to understand why Microsoft is so hated, then I can only conclude you must have the same criminal mentality as those you evangelise for. Perhaps you should have a quiet word with James Plamondon, Microsoft’s ex-chief TE – I’m sure he’ll explain things to you clearly.
This is the source of the “hatred” that you disingenuously claim is being directed towards you for no apparent reason. It’s not about you, it’s about Microsoft, and the fact that anyone could stoop so low as to “evangelise” for them.
To compound the problem, you then seek support from other known Microsoft shills.
Can you see how this might not help your case?
In fact, there really is only one way you can “help your case” , and that’s to find a job with another company, preferably one that isn’t run like a bunch of gangsters running a racketeering operation. Otherwise you’ll just continue to be perceived as one of this racket’s enforcers, spreading propaganda (that is the purpose of a “TE” after all, is it not?).
In short, go back to IBM.
PS: As a former Lotus TE, how does it feel to work for the company that once threatened to “tip Lotus into the death spiral”?
Slated, it is about me. And you made it about me the moment you inferred that I am “sinister”, “criminal” and insult me by implying that I “stoop so low as to evangelize for [Microsoft]“.
I have already explained myself multiple times regarding my disclosures. I am not going to repeat it here. (And who do you work for or represent, exactly?)
You can provide as many links as you want. Ultimately, Microsoft is going to be judged in the court of public opinion, which is beyond just you and the community at BN. So you guys don’t like Microsoft. Fine, we all get that.
There will be folks that disdain Microsoft, and there will still be folks that treasure Microsoft as a reliable technology partner to build their businesses on.
As I mentioned above many times, all I am appealing to the community (both FOSS and MS) for is for this mindless zealotry to stop. You don’t have to be either black or white. It’s OK to be a shade of grey.
I will still continue to evangelize my ideal of an interoperable world where different technologies can co-exist together. The market is big enough for everyone. In order to win, you don’t need everyone else to lose.
Yes, there are people within Microsoft that actually think that way. (gasp!)
You have a beef with Microsoft? Fine. Yell and moan all you want. There will be people who are willing to hear your story, just like there will be people who will rather you just shut up.
But stop with the ad hominem attacks. You just make yourself sound petty and angry.
You made it personal by attacking my character. Remember what you said yourself – You don’t even know me.
And BTW, although I enjoyed my time at IBM immensely, I love working here at Microsoft. I have personally never worked with a more passionate and dynamic bunch before in my life. I also still keep in touch with my good friends from the Lotus team, who I sometimes invite to come to our Microsoft developer events. One of them even presented at our event once.
You see, in the real world, it really isn’t as black and white as zealots seem to make it appear. Those with real world experience will recognize that the dynamics that govern the real world is often a lot more complex than just a matter of “You’re with us or against us.”
Interesting article. I agree that Roy has issues – I’d say, from just looking at him, that Microsoft ate his kids and Steve Ballmer stole his wife.
Aside from that though, have you actually gone through the articles? *If you can* cut out all the cruft, would you agree that Microsoft is a pretty ‘shady’ company?
My opinion:
I think if whatever business practices Microsoft does results in the company losing trust with our customers, partners, and technical community, then that is an unfortunate burden that collectively all 90,000 employees (including myself) have to bear.
We will have to work hard to regain that trust.
With all respect and politeness, I think you avoided the crux of my question.
No, in my personal opinion, I don’t believe what Microsoft is doing is necessarily any different than what any other large company (tech or otherwise) does throughout its history. Unless you are willing to characterize all big for-profit companies as “shady”.
Apple, Google, IBM – it doesn’t matter. Every large company (fortunately or unfortunately) has its top priority as bringing maximum returns to its shareholders.
Unfortunately, that is one side effect of capitalism that we will all have to bear with.
Note: This is actually a comment I received via email from someone who identified himself as “Silner Blogger”. With his permission, I am posting his comment here to add to the ongoing discussion
If Roy didn’t let you respond properly that was wrong, but as for the comments suspecting Microsoft of contributing to the kernel stack just to make it easier to run Windows hosts in mixed environments? Well lots of people think that and quite reasonably too. After you could have made it easier to run Windows in Virtualbox supporting full hardware acceleration: then there would have been no suspicion.
I’ll be honest though. The thing that’s really set back Microsoft’s credibility with ordinary Linux users like me, is suing over ridiculously broad patents like FAT32. Now to put this in perspective. I think the suit against MS regarding touch technologies is equally stupid. When MS publicly states that Software Patents are a crap idea; then I will revise my opinion altogether. Microsoft may not be the enemy, but you emphatic support of the US software patent system, most definitely is.
For what it’s worth, I am not a big fan of software patents either, solely because I think it’s difficult to enforce in a clear-cut and unambiguous way.
However, I do believe that the patent system is a necessary institution to promote innovation and give the small guys with the great idea a chance to compete with the big guys.
I just wished that there was some way we can eliminate patent trolling, which frankly is one practice that I can’t stand.
One prominent example that comes to mind immediately is the RIM settlement with NTP a couple years back.
By now many or most have seen the following article.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/23/microsoft_hyperv_gpl_violation/
I, too, mistrust the leadership of Microsoft. But then, I still use versions of Suse, as I have since version 8.1 (along with other distros and OSes, including,God forbid, Windows). But I remember when my Apple IIe was my primary desktop. IBM was the bad guy. Some organization will always hold the position for someone. It all seems much like some feudal system with various camps vying for a better position and more clout.
I agree with you quote by Jeff Waugh. For me, reading the posts and responses is a lot like keeping up with current events in the world.
Pleas for rising above the baser subjective views and resulting knee jerk responses are unlikely to be heeded.
Responses to you post have ranged from thoughtful to awful. Of interest to me is that individual intelligence seems to have little to do with it. Penguin Pete is undoubtedly a quite intelligent person. Still he sometimes appears to take the stand that “you and I are the only sane ones left, and I am having second thoughts about you”.
It seems that our technology is evolving faster than we are.
I agree with you, Ken.
Like I mentioned previously, I respect everyone’s personal choice of technologies.
All I am appealing to the community (both FOSS and MS) is for the zealotry to stop. You don’t have to be either black or white. It’s OK to be a shade of grey.
Call me naive, but I still believe in an interoperable world where different technologies can stand side-by-side and coexist. It doesn’t have to be the case that in order for me to be successful, everyone else must perish.
I believe the market is truly big enough for everyone to grab a piece. It’s not a zero-sum game. And if the market really is getting a bit tight for everyone? Well, instead of expending energy flailing aimlessly at each other, wouldn’t that energy be better served to work together to build new markets and grow demand? I mean, we are a planet of 7 billion people for chrissakes, and IT is not going away anytime soon.
No doubt the enterprise is one place where people recognize this, unlike idealists (from both camps) who, like Jeff Waugh says, “lacks life experience” to understand this.
I mean look at enterprise data centers today. Most that I’ve walked into before leverage a balanced mix of Linux and Windows servers, with the occasional AIX box thrown in. And the more advanced ones have Windows virtualized on Linux, Linux virtualized on Windows, everything virtualized on an IBM Z-Series mainframe… everything works together.
@Jon
Well it’s only “about you” if you can’t distinguish yourself from the company you work for, since that is the target of every one of my above remarks, with the single exception of the conditional statement regarding your possible failure to understand.
I have no idea of your personal moral stature, but I am painfully aware of Microsoft’s, and since you support them in a very specific and professional manner (TE) then that would seem to suggest either:
a) You still don’t understand/believe Microsoft’s moral depravity, which is why you sympathise with them (ignorance), or
b) You fully understand how reprehensible Microsoft is, but you hold a sympathetic position anyway (malice)
Given your later comments, I’ll be generous and assume it’s the former, although I find this barely credible, given Microsoft’s long history of corruption.
Under the circumstances, I think the least you can do is give me the courtesy of actually reading the links I posted. Ignorance is one thing, but you’ve demonstrated an unwillingness to even hear the truth, that borders on cultism.
I’ll take your word for it, but frankly the mere presence of a Microsoft TE in a group of Linux advocates is something I find quite disturbing, regardless of if and when you “outed” yourself. What is your purpose? You’ll have to forgive the cynic in me, who already has a pretty good preconception of what a Microsoft TE might be doing lurking amongst Linux advocates.
I’m retired, so I don’t work at all, and I represent myself, and only myself. If others choose to agree with me, then that’s fine too.
I’ve only ever worked for no-name agencies as an independent consultant, providing UNIX, Linux and bespoke solutions for (mainly) heavy industry. AFAIK I have no professional ties to any company that has ever been Microsoft’s direct competition, but equally I’ve never worked on or with any part of Microsoft’s stack, and indeed have never used any Microsoft software in the course of my work at all – ever.
In the past, I have had non-professional ties to Red Hat, as a volunteer (packaging, QA, etc.). My current activities are all non-technical in nature, as I’ve developed a passion for politics and philosophy, and in particular a passion for exposing corruption in corporate politics (a la Groklaw). I am not a lawyer, just a concerned member of the public.
This is what I mean by my previous comment. You have an utterly blinkered mentality.
Being outraged by Microsoft’s criminal behaviour is hardly “mindless zealotry”, Jon.
Are you being disingenuous again, or are you simply in denial?
Tell me, how would you characterise Microsoft’s (and Intel’s) attack on the OLPC?
Microsoft sabotaged the efforts of a charity, Jon. A charity, for God’s sake! And to what end? For no better reason than to inhibit Linux mindshare … that’s all. Just that.
The OLPC offered a form of aid to Third World countries, which no Western company had ever even considered as a “market” for PCs before, and this was all it took for both Microsoft and Intel to hit the panic button, and completely undermine Negroponte’s efforts. OLPC deals were signed and sealed, until those goons from Intel and Microsoft did their little tour of the Third World.
For mindshare.
No profit (indeed considerable losses), just mindshare.
Sickening, and utterly indefensible.
What does it say in the Microsoft TE handbook about that one, Jon?
Then to add insult to injury, Microsoft did it again, by bribing Nigerian education suppliers to replace Mandriva with Windows, but were caught red handed, so they bailed out.
Is there a chapter in the handbook for that one too?
There are literally thousands of other examples, possibly tens of thousands (that I could find), and God knows how many more that have yet to be exposed.
But is there even any point in me telling you this, if you’ve already been indoctrinated by Microsoft’s propaganda, to the point that you yourself have become one of those propagandists … professionally, no less?
Can you see the source of my cynicism?
Ah yes, the old “black or white” mantra that’s currently doing the rounds on the TE circuit. Sorry, I’m out of the Guerrilla Marketing Buzz® loop, so I didn’t get that memo. I’m afraid I don’t hold much stock in pragmatism – it’s just a euphemism for selling out, or being a sucker, take your pick.
Well I hope you won’t be doing any of that on company time, because something tells me you’d be in contravention of company policy.
Since when have Microsoft ever been interested in interoperability and peaceful coexistence? They’re corporate thugs, rampaging through the IT industry, hell bent on the destruction of anything that stands in their way.
If you don’t share that goal, then I’d venture to say you may be working for the wrong company.
Well I truly don’t know what to believe, since the position of Microsoft TE puts your credibility at a fatal disadvantage, but if you say so…
Assuming, for one minute, that you really are a sheep in wolf’s clothing (to coin a phrase) … what can you possibly hope to achieve in a company so institutionally indoctrinated with the ideals of domination and corruption?
How many of you sheep are there in Microsoft, exactly?
Oh dear, such platitudes.
I have a “beef” with corruption, monopolisers, corporate thugs and racketeers, and grossly unethical business practises – yes. Microsoft just happens to be one of the worst examples, and certainly the worst in my particular field of technical interest.
Yes I will.
And so will you. After all, as a professional Microsoft TE that’s what you’re paid to do. You sing Microsoft’s praises by burying or obfuscating the dirty truth about them, and people like me uncover that truth and loudly complain about it. So at the end of the day, I suppose it just comes down to who shouts loudest.
Do you profess to being one of the former, or the latter?
If your stated intentions (above) are genuine, then surely it must be the former.
It may seem that way to you, since you find yourself emotionally, inextricably intertwined with the company you work for. This is hardly surprising, after all you are a professional Microsoft Evangelist. That is a morally questionable position to be in, but it only calls your morality into question if you are truly devoted to Microsoft’s cause. Then again, if you’re not devoted to that cause, then you’re clearly not doing your job properly.
That’s quite a conundrum to be in, isn’t it?
Petty? Hardly. These are extremely important issues of justice, market balance, and liberty. Specifically: Bringing Microsoft to account for their unethical and/or criminal business tactics, ending Microsoft’s monopoly, and bringing true choice and freedom to software consumers.
But yes, I am angry, and rightfully so, since I have been personally subjugated by Microsoft’s racketeering operation, and continue to be: Every time I try to buy a PC without Windows; every time I try to get technical support – only to be told the company only supports Windows; every time I see my efforts undermined by Microsoft and their cartel of “partners”.
Yes, I’m damned angry. In fact I’m bloody furious, and that anger will never subside, until every last trace of Microsoft’s criminal empire has been extinguished.
I’ve seen your Real World®.
Now it’s time for something better.
NB: Please be assured that I am genuinely willing to engage in reasonable discourse, if you are willing to listen to, and actually care about, some of the more ugly truths about the company you evangelise for.
Can you make that leap of faith, I wonder?
Now that I had a good night of sleep, here is my response to you.
I can perfectly well distinguish between who I am and the company that I work for. And please don’t deny your attack on my character when you implied that I am either an ignorant fool or a maligned criminal with no morale for taking a job as an evangelist for Microsoft. Again, black or white. Sorry you didn’t get the memo, but the world is not that simple. (I would of thought you have the life experience to recognize that, considering you seem to be much older than me).
How about this possibility?
I have a passion for technology and sharing with people. Although I have been exposed to both the FOSS world and the Microsoft world in my career, I love the Microsoft products which I used day-in, day-out for the past decade or so. I may not necessarily agree with everything my company decides to do (who does?), but my job gives me the best opportunity to pursue what I love to do while working with the products I genuinely think are great. All at the same time I am given a platform to push my own personal agenda of bringing about an interoperable world. Yes, Microsoft grants me a platform to do that.
It ain’t no conundrum to be in at all. I can sleep well at night, I get wonderful feedback from my customers, partners, and tech communities that we reach out to, and my boss seems to like the job that I’m doing.
Does that sound preposterous to you, Slated?
Don’t patronize me with that “technical evangelist handbook” garbage. You know *nothing* about what I do in my job besides just the misinformed and outdated drivel you read on Boycott Novell. James Plamondon hasn’t been with Microsoft for years, and I certainly don’t treat my developers and partners as “pawns”, but as valuable partners that we depend on greatly.
If you want to continue to live in the 90′s and want to believe that the way Microsoft does “evangelism” hasn’t progressed since then, that’s your prerogative. And I assume you will, since it appears to me that your entire argument is dependent on the stereotype of the criminal and maligned Microsoft TEs still behaving that way. Oh, and because BN constantly reinforces that image, of course it must be the truth, right?
You don’t think Microsoft believes in interoperability? Fine, don’t take Microsoft’s word for it, but take Google’s (scroll a few pages of results and see).
BTW, did you miss it when Microsoft was invited to give a keynote speech at JavaOne this year? It seems like you are one of the only few remaining vestiges left who doesn’t believe a company today is willing to embrace interoperability and play nice with each other and doesn’t have to give up their business objectives.
Because companies with limited resources choose to support the most popular desktop operating system on the planet, that is Microsoft’s fault. Right. If you believe in economic theory, when there is demand, there will be supply that moves in to fill the void, since it becomes profitable to be a supplier. That implies to me that there isn’t enough demand out there for Linux; hardly Microsoft’s fault, except to the conspiracy theorists.
You bring up OLPC. Now, I have to admit that I haven’t been following the OLPC saga and may not have all the facts, but based on what I have read so far, I don’t understand how someone can claim OLPC was sabotaged by Microsoft.
Quoted from Wikipedia:
Charles Kane, OLPC President & COO said this, regarding the decision to enable XO-1 laptops to dual-boot either open source Fedora or Windows XP:
From reading this, I cannot possibly see how the OLPC project was sabotaged by Microsoft. If anything, Microsoft was working with the OLPC team to make sure Windows (The world’s most familiar desktop OS) works on the XO-1 laptops. If there was any conflict, it was within the OLPC organization itself, as (here we go again) the open source purists are fighting with those with a more pragmatic view of the world.
I don’t care about what Intel did, but tell me where is the sabotage by Microsoft? One sensational headline on a Softpedia op-ed piece does not the truth make.
You are correct on one thing though. Unfortunately, the way the Internet works nowadays is to see who speaks the loudest. Of course, everyone will have have to judge for themselves who are the ones gospel-ling the truth, and who are the ones spewing the drivel.
I seem to have missed a close-blockquote towards the end of my last comment, can you please fix it?
Thanks.
Done.
I’ll reply to the rest of your comment after I get some sleep. It’s 4 am in this part of the world…
My apologies Jon, I mixed you up with the David Schlesinger (aka “Lefty”) imbecile:
http://opensourcetogo.blogspot.com/
That however does not change the fact that the both of you resort to personal attacks and slander.
Cheers,
Marti van Lin
Linux Steunpunt Maastricht
Anyone else see the irony of someone making unsubstantiated accusations of slander in a public forum?
Just found this article on reddit.com
http://www.osnews.com/story/21887/Linus_Microsoft_Hatred_Is_a_Disease_
“There are ‘extremists’ in the free software world, but that’s one major reason why I don’t call what I do ‘free software’ any more. I don’t want to be associated with the people for whom it’s about exclusion and hatred.”
Nice find.
Now I’m just waiting for someone from the BN community to claim that Linus is a M$ shill who is on Microsoft’s payroll.
The error most MS proponents make is confusing criticism on MSes products and behavior with hatred. It clouds the discussion, because it makes it impossible to discuss these issues without being labeled a “zealot”. Gee, I’ve even been called an MS shill myself when publishing an article on Windows FOSS ports.
I can fully understand why Torvalds doesn’t have any problem adding MS related code in his code base. If I were in his place and able to assert any possible patent problems beforehand I would too, I guess. If you play by the rules, you’re in.
I have contemplated what I would do if Microsoft added any code to my code base. I think – as a small developer – I would be afraid to add the code for the simple reason that I am not a lawyer and cannot assert any legal complications. But that aside, if I was happy on that account, I would include it too.
And – here we go again – that’s the main problem with FOSS/MS related activities. You’re never sure when the lawyers pop out of that patent infested Trojan horse.
Gain security – gain trust.
Well, like I explained many times above, IMO I’m not sure if a Microsoft patent claim over Microsoft’s donated code will hold up in court. The easiest way to think about it is because this is sort of like entrapment.
I freely donate code to you to use. You go ahead and use it unchanged. I sue you for using the code. Something just doesn’t sound right here.
I’m willing to believe that Linus (as well as Greg K-H and most of the lawyers in the FOSS camp) thinks this is ludicrous as I do, which is why they have no qualms with accepting this donated code.
Note that law lives in its own universe. If you violated the law by simply applying the letter of the law, you got a case. Surely, there is also the “spirit” of the law, the way it was intented. But realize that the kind of legal guns that MS has cannot hold up to the small legal services an individual has. OJ was freed as well by some serious legal gunpower.
MS just has a bad track record in that respect. Many feel it cannot be trusted. Note that although IBM holds many, many patents it has NEVER exercised a single one against any FOSS entity, either corporate or private. It has – AFAIK – never violated a ISO license once.
That is trust.
P.s. Remember Mike Row.
Well, whether one chooses to have faith in the law and the legal system is everyone’s own opinion, I suppose. So is trust – that’s also something that is up to each individual to decide.
I haven’t actually heard of the Mike Rowe story before today. Thanks for pointing it out to me. Reading the case on Wikipedia, it seems like a classic case of both sides being overly zealous in their position. Again, it’s a matter of grey, and not black or white.
Mike Rowe’s demands for $10K for the domain name could have been interpreted as cybersquatting (I mean, he did choose mikerowesoft.com instead of mikerowe.com). But then again, Microsoft was IMO, also a bit too heavy-handed in the whole affair. However, they may have had no choice.
From Wikipedia:
I’m glad everything was settled amicably and nicely. Rowe gave up the domain to MS, he set up a new website paid for by MS, received a whole bunch of gifts, got to tour MS research facilities, and charities got donations (from Rowe’s defense fund).
All’s well that ends well.
C’mon Jon, Mike Row was a kid. He was using his REAL name, no one can honestly maintain that he was cybersquatting. Were the “..soft” is concerned, there are thousands of kids that like to leave the impression that they are a “real” entity and add “..soft” to their name.
I wouldn’t call the armtwisting MS did amicably, whatever the MS spin doctors tried to make from it. At least, it didn’t work for me.
Still it may be an idea to set up a website in Holland for the programs my pet bird has written and cash $10,000 for FSF Europe.
http://www.mycrowsoft.nl
Just kidding
I agree with Struan Robertson that if it went to court, it wasn’t a slam dunk that Microsoft will win. But I still think it’s good that both sides decided to settle.
Anyway, Mike claimed that he wanted to “prove a point that the small guy can win against the giant corporations.” And he achieved his goal. Microsoft needed to pursue this or risked losing the right to fight future trademark infringements. And they accomplished their objective.
Like I said, all’s well that ends well.
One last note about the whole affair that made me chuckle:
From CNET:
And what does Mike do with his new website?
Somehow I just found that funny.
Well, let’s say that your company seems preety heavy handed in dealing with a bunch of stuff, even if you don’t appear to do so. I’m talking about patent threats & deals, disregard for standards, the stagnation of MSIE v6 for so long…
In essence it’s the unfair use of your dominant market position, sometimes legal sometimes gray, sometimes maybe black.
It’s something you may not notice if you’re in the company that is criticized, so I’ll give you the benefit of doubt.
Well, I have a few more minutes so I came back for a few comments.
First, I happen to remember that freedom software developers were the ones who were “coding alone in basements”, now it turns out that people who do “lip service” for Microsoft are the ones sitting alone in their basements, rebuffing peoples’ arguments. Isn’t it ironic?
Second, let’s do a little free market economics!
In a perfect free market economy every economic agent has equal resources with the others.
But it turns out that some obtain more money by making better decisions than the others (Microsoft) and they use their advantages to obtain long term and more consistent advantages. But at some point the regulatory agent (government) should step in and stop some people from overtaking a market, transforming it from a free market to an oligopoly or worse, monopoly. Worse still, some economic agents become so big that they influence whole government policies. Microsoft was under investigation for antitrust violation by DOJ until 2004, but the case was dismissed because of the ideology that the state has minimal regulatory duties.
They were therefore leaving for the market mechanisms to sort out how to transform the monopoly centered market back to a free market.
What’s ironic to me is that for all the grief I got from the community for “shilling”, “astroturfing”, “not disclosing properly” and what not, Most of the people who leave comments here are doing so anonymously.
But it’s alright. I don’t mind. A discussion is a discussion, whether I can see your face or not.
Oh, and by the way, if you have read my blog disclaimer, you will know that everything here is my opinion, I don’t do lip service for Microsoft, and it’s very difficult to find a house here in Singapore with a basement.
I am closing comments for this thread.
Thanks for everyone’s constructive (and not so constructive) comments over the past week.
I think by now, everything that needs to be said has already been said by all sides. I certainly learned a lot from the community and it helped me gain a lot of new perspectives on things that I normally would not have been aware of.
Therefore, I’m looking forward to move on and contribute in other ways to the social web. Don’t worry, Boycott-Novellians, I won’t be going over to visit for a while.
If you still have something to say, you are more that welcome to email me.
Oops! I just copied directly from the quote. Fixed.
poster karma reduced: anonymous troll
For the record, I have nothing to do with Reddit or submitting this article to Reddit.
I don’t even have a Reddit account.
Only other public forum which I cross-posted the link to this article was on my Twitter and on the comp.os.linux.advocacy newsgroup (since I quoted them).
The problem with this argument (and I’m not on either side here, just trying to be a little objective) is like a USC fan going to UCLA and telling them their football team stinks, you should root for USC, and then being surprised when they get upset with you.
I appreciate the fact that you want to correct what you consider inaccuracies directed at your employer, but going into what was very obviously an anti-Microsoft crowd and making comments, however reasonable they may have seemed at the time, ridiculing the users (that’s the way they perceive it) only serves to cause dissent and unrest.
Perhaps I was being naive that I can have a discussion with the crowd there.
Granted, I admit my initial comment was slightly on the sarcastic side, even though I did use my fair share of smileys.
Shortly after which, the ad hominem attacks started.
Remember, believe it or not, but before last week, I didn’t know anything about the website or the community there, besides maybe hearing the name in passing.