Watch as the Microsoft / Open Source apologists push a narrative

Date:
Thu, 14 Jul 2022 05:38:17 GMT

Description:
The Register says, "stop being so harsh on Redmond."

FULL STORY ======================================================================

Over the last week, Ive published a few articles detailing Microsofts history with Open Source (and Linux) and analyzing their present approach to working with the Open Source industry.

Those articles, specifically, showcased Microsofts attempts to apply their long-standing Embrace, Extend, Extinguish strategy to Open Source and Linux.

Note: I am not, by any stretch, anti-Microsoft. I spent over half a decade working for the company and have written numerous articles discussing some of the excellent achievements of Microsoft over the years. That said, Im also a realist with enough experience in this industry to be able to call things as they are. For better or worse.

For background, the Lunduke Journal Articles that have spurred this on:

Microsoft's growing control of Linux

Microsoft begins "Extinguish" phase of dealing with Open Source.

Microsoft: "Using an open-source solution may introduce risks"

As I was writing those articles, I thought to myself:

Self, these articles are going to cause other Tech Journalists that cover the Open Source industry to respond... And those responses will, almost
assuredly, try to promote Microsoft as the savior of Open Source and Linux.

And, right on schedule, it has started with an article, published on The Register, from long-time Tech Journalist Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols: Get over it: Microsoft is a Linux and open source company these days .

Side note: Right about now you might be asking yourself, Why would Linux and Open Source reporters be trying to convince me of how benevolent Microsoft is towards Linux? Its a fair question to ask. Dont stop asking it.

The core premise of that Register article so wildly wrong that it borders on the silly.

In fact, the problems with that article from The Register start with the very first line:

In the beginning, Microsoft was The Evil Empire.

Say what, now? I wont deny, thats a good opening line but *ahem*

In the beginning IBM was The Evil Empire. And, if Steven is talking about
the early days of Microsoft they were not the Evil Empire at that time . Not by a long-shot.

In fact, Microsoft was (in those early days) primarily a maker of software
and hardware for a variety of computer platforms made by other companies. Commodore, Apple, Tandy, and so many others.

But, to be fair, Steven isnt 100% wrong in his statement. Only 93.6% wrong. Microsoft, eventually, did earn the label of Evil Empire by many in the Tech press and various parts of the computing industry. And for good reasons: ranging from anti-competitive practices (culminating in action from the Federal government) to implementations of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish throughout the industry.

But it didnt earn the Evil Empire title until many years later.

If Steven had said A few years ago, we called Microsoft The Evil Empire sure.
He would be correct. But not The Beginning.

Ill give Steven a pass on that one, though. Even though it was (at best) a misleading statement it was still a good opening line. And it doesnt really change the rest of his article.

The article goes on to list a large number of things that Microsoft has done over the years to suggest they are working to eliminate Open Source and
Linux.

Seriously. I recommend reading it. Its a laundry list of things that
support the basic premise that Microsoft is seeking to Extinguish Linux and Open Source.

From the famous Linux is a cancer statements (from Microsofts CEO) to prominent Free Software organizations concerned with Microsofts ignoring of software licenses on GitHub . Enough pieces of evidence to convince any jury in the land that Microsofts intentions are not exactly pro-Open Source.

In fact The Register article never refutes the fact that Microsoft,
currently, states that Using an open-source solution may introduce risks nor does the article address that close to 100% of all Microsoft products are Closed Source (even the ones Microsoft no longer sells or supports in any capacity).

Despite all of that the article ends with the following (mildly baffling) closing statement:

All things considered, it's well past time to stop being so harsh on Redmond . Stop judging Microsoft on what it did a decade ago and judge it by what
it's doing today .

Whats Microsoft doing today? Encouraging people to not use Open Source software, prohibiting Open Source software from selling on their online store , and not open sourcing their own software.

The author of that Register article knows all this. Hes a smart guy (and a nice guy, I should add weve spent time together at many events and done
shows together). But he, like the vast majority of the Tech Journalists out there (specifically the ones that often cover Enterprise Computing), is running interference for Microsoft.

Promoting and advocating on Microsofts behalf, even when the facts dont support it.

Exactly as predicted.

Watch as it continues. Because it will.

From a number of different publications and journalists.

Many of whom take advertising dollars from Microsoft (or from companies working with Microsoft).

*cough*

In case you were wondering: The Lunduke Journal takes no advertising dollars from any company at all. This publication is 100% supported by subscribers just like you (who get some pretty sweet goodies in return). Subscribe now





======================================================================
Link to news story: https://lunduke.substack.com/p/watch-as-the-microsoft-open-source


--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 (Linux/64)
* Origin: tqwNet Technology News (1337:1/100)