Microsoft Calls AdTI "Study" an "Unhelpful Distraction" (Microsoft FUD Goes Thud)

www.groklaw.com ^ | Monday, June 14 2004 @ 11:49 PM EDT | Pamela Jones

[shadowman99]

Microsoft Calls AdTI "Study" an "Unhelpful Distraction"

Monday, June 14 2004 @ 11:49 PM EDT

Well, friends, we've won the Alexis de Tocqueville FUD war.

It's official. In the face of a united community's repudiation of Ken Brown's "Samizdat" attack on Linus and Linux, Microsoft told the Wall St. Journal's reporter, Lee Gomes, the report wasn't helpful, leading Gomes to end his report, "Recent attacks on Linux come from dubious source", like this:

"With growing numbers of businesses turning to Linux, its pros and cons are fair game for debate. But cynically manufacturing confusion isn't debating. Even Microsoft didn't like the way this report turned out, though it indirectly helped subsidize it. A company spokesman called the study, 'an unhelpful distraction from what matters most -- providing the best technology for our customers.'"

That is the cherry on top that dooms the report to the junk bin. I doubt that it enhances a "think tank's" reputation to be called an "unhelpful" "dubious source".

Do you think they'll put that quotation up on their web site?

I wish to commend Microsoft for repudiating this "study", which they were at least indirectly responsible for. No. Really. There is no need to be cynical today, although I'm sure we can all admit to plenty of subsidiary reactions, including a definite reaction to claiming "the best technology". But this is a day to just rejoice and let a few things slide for now.

I have a further suggestion for Microsoft, since they followed my advice about repudiating Samizdat: learn to play nice with others, distance yourself from SCO, drop what we believe are your patent-pool attack plans on GNU/Linux, actuallly work on providing the best technology instead, and you may find your company has a future after all. It's the Information Age now, you know. The old ham-fisted, muscle techniques will have to go, because they don't work in broad daylight, and that is exactly where you are.

I'm only kidding about them following my advice -- I have no knowledge that they followed or even knew about my previous suggestion. We've had a huge upsurge in trolls since I began highlighting the AdTI story, so maybe they did, but that isn't proof positive. If I were AdTI, I'd put out a press release, but I'm not, so I'll acknowledge it's only suggestive. They could be AdTI operatives, or SCO's, after all. Still, it was good advice. And so is this.

You can read Gomes' story on the Wall Street Journal, if you have a sub, on page B1 (or search for Gomes off the home page), or via Google, which directs you to the AP, which has picked up the story.

So, as weird as it feels, we can now add Microsoft to our list of those offering rebuttals to Samizdat.

Don't forget, SCO has another teleconference Tuesday.

  

Groklaw © Copyright 2003, 2004 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.

Comments are owned by the individual posters.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

[Golden Eagle]

it's because Red Hat doesn't want to violate any patents

So pirateware is the answer, for your supposedly new o/s install?

[Paladin2]

The use of Linux/GNU/FSF/GPL etc. at FR STILL doesn't prevent GE from continuing support/use of this site (without any evidence of posting on any other topic outside of M$/Linux topics).

Combined with a cognitively dissonant support for heavily discredited B$ such as that from AdTI, now disavowed even by M$, one really has to question the motivation.

GE might even be in the running for being the quintessential example of an anti-Linux shill.

[Golden Eagle]

GE might even be in the running for being the quintessential example of an anti-Linux shill.

Skeptic. When the Chinese can take a US company's product like Red Hat and supposedly legally rename it Red Flag it bothers me. When liberals start trying to change the laws to force our government to use it then I start questioning and looking into it more. When people like Richard Stallman are found right off the bat, I become a critic. And no one has convinced me I'm wrong yet. More like regualar personal attacks, name calling, red herrings and then more insults. You're particularly good at that craft, although as you've noticed I'm not affected. It only makes you look weak and subjective, which you are. Good, that's why I'm here.

[Paladin2]

Skeptic? More like Cynic or Objective Realist.

You are continuing to avoid answer the question of why you support FR given it's use of the "enemies" software. You also avoid the question of why your only posts are to push the current point-of-the-day anti-Linux, anti-IBM, pro-M$, pro-SCOx agenda.

Typical of the deflection attempts is to claim that Linux represents some sort of huge (hugh here at FR ;-), - I'm series) risk to national security while your buddies at M$ have all sorts of foreign web sites aimed at selling "better" software to the same enemies (your false protestations of concern for same not withstanding).

You should write your own American O/S, unavailable to furriners (unlike both Gnu/Linux and Window$), that we all could embrace.

[Golden Eagle]

You should write your own American O/S, unavailable to furriners (unlike both Gnu/Linux and Window$), that we all could embrace.

You've given me no reason to believe you would. Especially since there are already plenty of alternatives to GPL operating systems out there that you only criticize.

[Golden Eagle]

Speaking of only posting on one topic, looks like all but a couple of your posts are on the same subject as well. Pot, meet Kettle.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/site/user-posts?id=60490

[Paladin2]

Zero is a differnence in kind, not degree. When we examine you history we find NO "off-topic" posts.

[Paladin2]

AND you still avoid the two questions above......

Waiting for your reply to the direct questions of others.

[Golden Eagle]

I have no idea what you're talking about, probably talking in circles again. Not wasting my time on your foolishness tonight, that's for sure. O U T.

[Paladin2]

Obvious avoidance of the basic question of "why do you continue to hang out at FR when is hosted by that "commie, hippie, anti-American" software.

All of FR (with the likely exception of B2k) are awaiting your answer.

[Nick Danger]

Your comments sound vaguely manufactured. Though reasonable in tone, they are largely inaccurate and misleading, if a bit condescending.

To state definitively that Linux was ported rather than created would require knowledge available to either Andrew Tanenbaum (were linux a port of minix) or Dennis Ritchie (were linux a port of UNIX). Both men have stated that what you said is false, i.e. they have stated that linux is not a 'port' of either of those operating systems. Since they wrote those operating systems, a reasonable reader would have to believe them and not you.

It is no more clear how you can state definitively that linux is not a kernel; that the term must refer to a package that includes compilers, utilities, etc. What you said was true of UNIX as licensed by AT&T, but Mr. Torvalds, who owns the linux trademark, does not distribute a product containing compilers and utilities, nor is he involved in their licensing. A charitable reading of your comments is that you were trying to sound expert while not quite knowing what you were talking about, and being a bit sloppy with words to the point of being wrong.

Your comments concerning "attacks" on the University of Wisconsin report questioning the security of Linux are misplaced. I say that because there was no reference to any such thing in the article. Thus your sentence introducing them makes no sense, except as evidence that your comment here was manufactured somewhere else and "ported" here without adequate context-checking. The paragraph appears to be a ruse used to introduce gratuitous comments about "security," and to deliver the payload phrase "Microsoft is leading" to people who struggle daily with viruses, trojans, adware, and other manifestations of Microsoft's leadership in the field of operating system security.

Let's learn a little bit about SCO. This is not the same company that "was one of the few alternative sources to DEC, IBM, SUN, and HP." That was the Santa Cruz Operation, now called Tarantella Inc. The Santa Cruz operation sold their UNIX business in 2001 to Caldera Systems, a company that had gone public on the promise of becoming "the next Red Hat" as a linux distributor. They were failing miserably at that, and in fact there is a shareholder class-action lawsuit against them concerning their IPO. Caldera's one claim to fame is that it had purchased the carcass of the old Digital Research, including the rights to DR-DOS. It used this to sue Microsoft, and to collect a sum estimated to have been in the neighborhood of $120 million.

Whether referred to as Caldera, or their new name "The SCO Group, Inc." this is a company that has never made a profit from operations. It is a lawsuit factory masquerading as a software company. By saying that their case looks strong to you, you have told us that you are completely ignorant concerning the case and the proceedings so far. In fact their various opponents are moving toward summary judgement against them on nearly every front. The judge presiding over the IBM and Novell cases has expressed his doubt as to whether SCO even owns the copyrights they claim to have.

Unix has been a religion for as long as I can remember. They even have an Idol, the penguin.

You are probably not the right person to be explaining this to other people.

[Paladin2]

There you go again, changing the subject.

I'm lazy.

Please supply the last date where you made a post not associated with M$, Linux, GNU, FSF, GPL, ADdTI, Operating Systems, Linus Torvalds, etc.

We'll get into your posting time pattern at a later date.

[Golden Eagle]

Oh, the one I've already answered countless times? Because it's a great place to hang out and discuss this kind of stuff, always has been, although the quality of posters sure has deteriorated as of late. Here's an example of what I'm talking about, even the articles nowdays have deteriorated to nothing, look at this linnk then think, wow, now we get freaking Groklaw, from shadowman instead.

Free Republic 4/13/99: Bill Clinton's 'Sale' of Super Computing Helps Create World Nuclear Threats!!!!!

[Cultural Jihad]

Odd that you must have manually typed in the article rather than just copying it; you missed whole sections of paragraphs. Was this the annotated version?

[Golden Eagle]

They even have an Idol, the penguin.

You are probably not the right person to be explaining this to other people.

Why not? Sounds exactly right, to me.

[Paladin2]

You haven't answered squat.

This article seems to be about M$ selling stuff to the ChiComs with the approval of your fellow traveler, BC.

It still seems like a person of your obvious capabilities should be providing the American O/S so we can contimue to stand head and shoulders above the rest.

We patiently await your offering.

[Golden Eagle]

This article seems to be about M$ selling stuff to the ChiComs with the approval of your fellow traveler, BC.

INCREDIBLY poor reading comprehension, LOL. I suggest you try at least a couple more times before daring to comment again. LOL, throw a little old FR on him, watch him fall to pieces.

[Paladin2]

AND the last time you posted anything "off topic" was?

[Paladin2]

I don't have to read your references as you have referred to those proven purveyors of FUD, AdTI, in the past. We know they have no credibility, much as yourself.

[Paladin2]

I don't have to read your references as you have referred to those proven purveyors of FUD, AdTI, in the past. We know they have no credibility, much as yourself.

(Post more properly directed)