Techrights (formerly Boycott Novell) is not the place to go for that.
It is the conspiracy site that has claimed such things as Microsoft caused the Deepwater Horizon spill, Bill Gates invests in companies that cause polio in Africa, the real purpose of the Gates Foundation's work in Africa is to oppress brown people so that Africa can be recolonized by western governments, that Microsoft has significant control over the US government, the French government, the UK government, PBS, the Lancet, the Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN, and others (possibly related to Microsoft's attendance at the Bilderberg meetings).
And that's just a few I remember from literally hundreds of such things that have been posted there in the 13 or so years its been around.
It's not all conspiracy theory stuff, but even when it covers something that is actually true it tends to mix in some of the conspiracy stuff.
Conspiracy necessarily implies violating the law. They do not typically claim lawbreaking, more usually just garden-variety underhanded dealing. Microsoft is not at all shy about engagement in the latter.
Consistent pressure in one direction over decades can have profound effects even when nothing that seems especially noteworthy is done.
The interview has practically no content. The mayor says that a leader of the ‘green’ party suddenly switched sides supporting Microsoft at every turn but states no reason why, so insinuations this was influenced by Microsoft somehow aren’t made in the interview. Then he laments about how much this probably is going to cost and what they could have done, mostly invest in better hardware and just better politics, convincing people of the value of independence and data security.
That’s maybe the reason why also the linked article almost has no content. It’s just a series of allegations and diversions into how much Microsoft sucks. There’s not even anecdotal evidence mentioned. As much as I sympathize with the view, you need to back it up. I didn’t get any value from the article, and that’s disappointing cause I’m sure there’s a real story to be told here.
I'm not sure that was the point. It's clearly stated in the article that the move back to Windows had no technical merit with regard to operations of the FOSS supplicants. The HN crowd is well aware of all of the default telemetry and "spyware" that is the current generation of desktop Windows.
Personally, it feels like the beginning of the turning of a tide. Large organizations are finally starting to wear on the idea of "subscriptions" as a default base for lock-in and data collection. "Our service runs in the cloud for your benefit!" they say. "It's a subscription that delivers customer value!" they say. None of it's true. The angle is investor value. Everyone at Microsoft size is building products for the bottom line, not the consumer. Microsoft doesn't get a pass because the article doesn't drill on point by point how Microsoft has marginalized and abused OSS since they took the first pot shots at Linux.
I still don't understand how organizations rationalize Windows as a core OS their business runs on. Primarily Microsoft environments fuel the majority of the security industry today and so it appears to be one big cyclical money laundering scheme. Microsoft continues to build on a platform that's always rife with security flaws, the Enterprise security vendors "solve" this and it's a fantastic circle of POs for everyone, including Microsoft.
While you may not have gotten "value" from the article the continued solicitation of the punches Microsoft has pulled to continually remind people of that is worth it enough to publish it. Burying what they've done and continue to do brings nobody value.
Thanks for linking. Agreed, eg.the idiom should have read "sink or swim" (not eat or die), but is the rest really that bad? Also the source article isn't too informative to begin with.
Unfortunately, that's pretty much par for the course with Schestowitz. Even where he's got some actual meat (and many of his roasts are at best thin stews, often verging on homeopathic), he trips over himself slathering on the umbrage and insinuation.
I tend to believe what he's insinuating here, that Microsoft prioritises desktop licenses well above any apparances of playing nice with Linux (Azure may be a market, but that's virtually (hah!) all servers). But Schestowitz can't get out of his own way to tell the story.
Going straight to the source is generally recommended in any case. All the more so in this instance.
Techrights (formerly Boycott Novell) is not the place to go for that.
It is the conspiracy site that has claimed such things as Microsoft caused the Deepwater Horizon spill, Bill Gates invests in companies that cause polio in Africa, the real purpose of the Gates Foundation's work in Africa is to oppress brown people so that Africa can be recolonized by western governments, that Microsoft has significant control over the US government, the French government, the UK government, PBS, the Lancet, the Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN, and others (possibly related to Microsoft's attendance at the Bilderberg meetings).
And that's just a few I remember from literally hundreds of such things that have been posted there in the 13 or so years its been around.
It's not all conspiracy theory stuff, but even when it covers something that is actually true it tends to mix in some of the conspiracy stuff.
Conspiracy necessarily implies violating the law. They do not typically claim lawbreaking, more usually just garden-variety underhanded dealing. Microsoft is not at all shy about engagement in the latter.
Consistent pressure in one direction over decades can have profound effects even when nothing that seems especially noteworthy is done.
The interview has practically no content. The mayor says that a leader of the ‘green’ party suddenly switched sides supporting Microsoft at every turn but states no reason why, so insinuations this was influenced by Microsoft somehow aren’t made in the interview. Then he laments about how much this probably is going to cost and what they could have done, mostly invest in better hardware and just better politics, convincing people of the value of independence and data security.
That’s maybe the reason why also the linked article almost has no content. It’s just a series of allegations and diversions into how much Microsoft sucks. There’s not even anecdotal evidence mentioned. As much as I sympathize with the view, you need to back it up. I didn’t get any value from the article, and that’s disappointing cause I’m sure there’s a real story to be told here.
I'm not sure that was the point. It's clearly stated in the article that the move back to Windows had no technical merit with regard to operations of the FOSS supplicants. The HN crowd is well aware of all of the default telemetry and "spyware" that is the current generation of desktop Windows.
Personally, it feels like the beginning of the turning of a tide. Large organizations are finally starting to wear on the idea of "subscriptions" as a default base for lock-in and data collection. "Our service runs in the cloud for your benefit!" they say. "It's a subscription that delivers customer value!" they say. None of it's true. The angle is investor value. Everyone at Microsoft size is building products for the bottom line, not the consumer. Microsoft doesn't get a pass because the article doesn't drill on point by point how Microsoft has marginalized and abused OSS since they took the first pot shots at Linux.
I still don't understand how organizations rationalize Windows as a core OS their business runs on. Primarily Microsoft environments fuel the majority of the security industry today and so it appears to be one big cyclical money laundering scheme. Microsoft continues to build on a platform that's always rife with security flaws, the Enterprise security vendors "solve" this and it's a fantastic circle of POs for everyone, including Microsoft.
While you may not have gotten "value" from the article the continued solicitation of the punches Microsoft has pulled to continually remind people of that is worth it enough to publish it. Burying what they've done and continue to do brings nobody value.
Here's the original 4-page interview of former mayor Christian Ude, it's very readable and should translate well with Google Translate:
https://www.linux-magazin.de/ausgaben/2019/10/interview-2/
Hmmm, it's not a very good translation:
Page 1:
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...
Page 2:
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...
Page 3:
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...
Page 4:
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...
Try DeepL https://www.deepl.com/en/translator — unfortunately it can't translate webpages, so you would have to copypaste the contents
Thanks for linking. Agreed, eg.the idiom should have read "sink or swim" (not eat or die), but is the rest really that bad? Also the source article isn't too informative to begin with.
I usually use Microsoft Edge for translating webpages on the fly. It's great tech.
Unfortunately, that's pretty much par for the course with Schestowitz. Even where he's got some actual meat (and many of his roasts are at best thin stews, often verging on homeopathic), he trips over himself slathering on the umbrage and insinuation.
I tend to believe what he's insinuating here, that Microsoft prioritises desktop licenses well above any apparances of playing nice with Linux (Azure may be a market, but that's virtually (hah!) all servers). But Schestowitz can't get out of his own way to tell the story.
Going straight to the source is generally recommended in any case. All the more so in this instance.