This is a discussion on [News] [Old] Why Bill Weisgerber et al Might Be Trashing ZDNet *LOL* - Linux ; -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Is MS Preening in Public Posts? ,----[ Quote ] | The author of the email, posted on ZDNet in a Talkback forum on the Microsoft | antitrust trial, claimed her name was Michelle Bradley ...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Is MS Preening in Public Posts?
,----[ Quote ]
| The author of the email, posted on ZDNet in a Talkback forum on the Microsoft
| antitrust trial, claimed her name was Michelle Bradley and that she
| had "retired" from Microsoft last week.
| "A verbal memo [no email allowed] was passed around the MS campus encouraging
| MS employee's to post to ZDNet articles like this one," the email said.
| "The theme is 'Microsoft is responsible for all good things in computerdom.'
| The government has no right to prevent MS from doing anything. Period.
| The 'memo' suggests we use fictional names and state and to identify
| ourselves as students," the author claimed.
A thank you from a Microsoft employee
,----[ Quote ]
| Apparently, as of January 2008, non-GPL Linux kernel modules will no
| longer be allowed...
| Well, as a person who not only works for Microsoft, but does so
| enthusiastically, I just want to say "thank you." Thank you for
| creating a policy that will make it less likely that makers of
| video cards will pay any attention to Linux. Yes, "the community"
| will beaver away to make these drivers themselves based on
| published chip specifications, but now you've ruled out the
| people who actually MAKE the chips from writing these things
| unless they agree to donate all their hard work for use by the
| community and competitors alike. Even Eric Raymond was against a
| policy that forbade proprietary drivers (yes, I realize he is not part of
| the "free software" movement, as "open source" != "free software").
PJ Responds: "I think you can see from this cynical blog entry that Microsoft
is behind the push to make sure GNU/Linux is contaminated by
proprietary blobs. Why and what the plan is I don't know. But if
Microsoft's John Carroll really believed that refusing proprietary
modules was going to be bad for Linux, would he stay silent and let
it happen? Or would he write about how foolish it is? You decide. I
know I have. And the Novell deal helps me to think it through as
to what Microsoft's motive might be. By the way, note the LWN News
Picks, that shows the end of the conversation, with the decision
that there would be no such deadline to ban non GPL linked modules,
in spite of what Carroll inaccurately reported. Sheesh."
She then links to the full thread:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----