Articles of Roy Schestowitz

By apexwm, 14 April, 2011 15:16

From time to time, links will pop up on various Linux or open source related sites, pointing to articles written by Roy Schestowitz, mainly from techrights.org. The articles are very well written and all sources for the articles are documented. Sometimes the articles include references to highly confidential material. And so far everything I have read seems to be true with clearly documented evidence. The articles often involve controversial issues with open source, along with lawsuits and even happenings at Microsoft regarding its negative attitude towards open source. For instance, Roy has posted articles claiming to include internal memos within Microsoft that specifically state how they are targeting Linux head-on. When reading the articles and comparing to latest news, they actually coincide and make sense.

What I find more interesting though, is that there are posts and other articles written to try and defame or discredit him. And some use some very strong language. Simply doing a Google search for "Roy Schestowitz" comes up with some examples. What in the world is going on here, and why are people trying so hard to discredit him for his articles on techrights.org?

It seems to be a mystery for the most part. But on some of his articles, Roy points out that he thinks there are some "Microsoft trolls" that are making up fake IDs and posting negative feedback. Is Microsoft up to this campaign to slam Roy? When reading the negative posts about him, it is clear that he is being attacked, in my opinion. The claims against him range from person beliefs to calling him a "liar", etc. If the content of Roy's articles contained highly confidential material as they claim, then I can see that Microsoft would be worried about it getting out and exposed and might try to do anything possible to try and convince the general public otherwise.

It makes me wonder, and I can't rule out Microsoft being behind all of this. It's been rumored that Microsoft does other things like post in Linux forums pretending to be a user with an issue, and when somebody responds with a helpful answer, no followup is seen after that. Most of us with an issue in a thread would be checking the thread for a solution and posting back the outcome or a quick "thank you". There will of course be a small percentage of those that run away after the solution is confirmed to work, but apparently there has been a high number of these type of posts.

Very strange, indeed. IF Microsoft is behind these strange activities, it would demonstrate that they are clearly worried about open source and Linux. Otherwise, why would they go to such extreme measures?

 

Talkback

Some of what Roy covers is well written and well documented. Some of it is unfounded rumour-mongering and innuendo. My personal opinion is that Roy is very lucky not to have been sued for libel.
miked2003 15 April, 2011 12:28
Report offensive content Reply



I have read Techrights for some time and have found it a great source of collated information on the subject matter of open source software.

@miked2003 - I dont think its a case of luck that he has not been sued. I think he has chosen his words correctly and, due to solid research, there are many truths in the matters he is discussing that can not be circumvented by the individual or company in question.
djflunk 15 April, 2011 13:22
Report offensive content Reply



It's not rumored, it's true. Microsoft does use 'sock puppets' to try and control discussion about them online. They used to show up on my site regularly, until I screwed down the posting security heavily. Now they don't bother me anymore. But in places like ZDNet which doesn't keep the security level so high, you'll see a lot of them.

Take @miked2003 for example. When you read his comment, you could take it several ways.

1) Innocent user who is put off by Roy
2) Microsoft hireling imitating innocent user put off by Roy

I used to get a lot of this sort of comment. Since upping the security levels, I don't. My theory is that this means that this sort of comment is coming from Microsoft Sock Puppets, and the risk of exposure under the enhanced security levels makes it too risky to post. And the theory seems to bear fruit, because I'm still getting all sorts of wing nut comments on other subjects, including one which accused a local lawyer of running a bordello with the help of the Toronto Police Service, another which left instructions on how to download a specific album for a band, and another which came from the Obama birther movement. These people weren't afraid to identify themselves, so why are the pro-Microsoft people afraid to identify themselves?

Roy does a good job. In fact I often use Techrights as a resource when researching my own articles, Roy has an immense database, with links to sources all over the internet. It's invaluable when you remember something, but can't remember whether it was ZDNet or ITWorld that published the original :) He always links back to his sources, something that too few people do.

Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
The Mad Hatter 15 April, 2011 13:46
Report offensive content Reply



@The Mad Hatter

You forgot

3) Someone who has personal experience of Roy making insinuations that he was unable to back up with any evidence whatsoever
miked2003 15 April, 2011 14:15
Report offensive content Reply



@The Mad Hatter:
That is quite interesting of your findings. And in fact, I've also seen feedback on some of my posts. I even had a user create an account just to post false rubbish in the feedback, only to never be heard from again. Probably because they either couldn't think of what to come back with, or it was becoming too much work. Or maybe they realized they were incorrect. Honestly I don't see what good it does for Microsoft to pop in to these and make obnoxious comments, but it is definitely amusing to say the least. Unfortunately for Microsoft, even though they try to force users to use their software, they simply cannot play that game forever. Eventually users will smart up and realize that open source offers much more flexibility, freedom, a better upgrade path, and much lower cost. Open source software is there, it works, and it can replace proprietary software. The issue is that Microsoft still controls the majority of the market, so with a higher presence they can continue to control users. But I suspect the clock is ticking, they can't do this forever, and in fact they are already losing their grip a little bit in some areas like the web browser wars.

@miked2003 : Please provide some examples. Everything I've read on Techrights has VERY good sources documented for its evidence.
apexwm 15 April, 2011 16:33
Edit Delete Report offensive content Reply


Hi apexwm,

I never comment in other people's blogs because some people forge me in them (calling other people "Nazi" and cursing myself), but I've just created an account just to thank you for a good post that I never expected (in fact, people rarely bother to defend defamed sources, so I appreciate it).

Do not be discouraged by people who try to derail your blog and be aware of this article from Wired Magazine. It says: "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."

In Techrights' wiki I have a section dedicated Microsoft PR agencies I've been researching and given concrete examples on. Microsoft is outsourcing what Gates calls "evangelisation" because this way it can blame those "rogue" companies when they get caught. It's a cultural thing and the Gates Foundation also spends over $1 per day on this "evangelisation" (planting praise in the press). Sad, but true.

Thanks again for explaining to people not just what people associated with Microsoft (including masked employees who later on turned out to be Microsoft TEs) did to me but also what they do to people like PJ at Groklaw. See PJ's article about how Groklaw was almost driven into closure 7 years ago. It's often done through intimidation and I saw it first hand. This includes campaigns to get critics fired.

[cont...]
Schestowitz 15 April, 2011 18:00
Report offensive content Reply


"The articles are very well written and all sources for the articles are documented". Let's look at that.

First, "well written". In fact they are childishly written. He plays dumb games with the names. He never talks about iPhone or iPad--they are always hypePhone and hypePad. The BBC is MSBBC. Florien Mueller is "Microsoft Florien". And so on and so on. But if anyone calls him "Spamowitz" or "Glen Schestowitz" he complains bitterly about how his enemies are attacking him.

Second, "documents". To be documented they need to cite verifiable THIRD PARTY sources. His articles do have an impressive number of links in them. Most link back to earlier articles of his own. Try following those, and the links in those articles. It is like winning the lottery when you actually end up at a third party source and it supports what Schestowitz says it says.

Here's a good example. In this article, http://techrights.org/2010/03/17/rich-uncle-bill-explored/, he writes about Bill Gates and Bill Clinton. They both testified before Congress on the same day urging an increase in US spending on global health. He also notes that there are photos of Bill Gates and Bill Clinton sitting next to each other.

Then, about nine months later, he writes this article: http://techrights.org/2011/01/02/vietnam-with-proprietary-software/. In that article, he cites the first article as showing "the special relationship between Clinton and Gates". Testifying on the same day in Congress and being seen sitting next to each other is a special relationship?

Next time he writes about Clinton and Gates and their "special relationship", he'll cite the second article, so you'll have to click through twice to see original sources and find out his claim is not supported.
randomprogrammer 15 April, 2011 18:50
Report offensive content Reply


[continued]

Here's another good example of poor research: http://techrights.org/2011/01/12/kinect-vs-move-and-truth/. He praises Sony for selling 4.1 million Moves in 2 months, and says it is beating Kinect. I invite you to do the research that Roy either didn't do, or purposefully ignored. You'll find Kinect did 4 million in ONE MONTH, and by two months was at something like 8 million. (Oh, Sony's numbers were "sell in", and Microsoft's were "sell through". The former is how many have been pushed into the sales channel, the latter is how many have sold to consumers. I.e., Sony's numbers included stock sitting on shelves).

A final example: http://techrights.org/2010/08/26/aviation-and-windows-2/. He claims the crash of a Spanair plane was caused by malware. This is an outright lie. The crash was caused by the flaps being in an incorrect position at takeoff, because the pilots did not go through the preflight checklist. There was a warning system that should have warned them of this--but it was not a computerized warning system.

There was (possibly) malware on a computer owned by Spanair. That computer was at headquarters, hundreds of miles from the plane and crash, and was used to file maintenance reports. Its connection to the crashed flight was that if all had gone well, a day or two *AFTER* the crash, a maintenance report on that plane was due to be filed, and the computer was supposed to then notice that the plane had had the same problem three times in a short period (a problem unrelated to the crash), and flag for further investigation. There is speculation that this flagging would have perhaps failed due to the malware.

I'll stop with the examples now, although I have dozens more (some hilarious, like a fairly recent one claiming that the iPad--excuse me, hypePad--has been a big failure commercially).

I challenge you to actually SERIOUSLY read Techrights for a couple of weeks. By "seriously" I mean read each article and do a good fact checking on it. Follow the links until you get to original sources. Check those sources and see if (1) they actually support what Schestowitz is citing them for, and (2) if they seem to be legitimate sources.

I guarantee that if you do this, you'll be posting another blog entry, retracting this one.
randomprogrammer 15 April, 2011 18:50
Report offensive content Reply


Hi Roy:

Thanks for joining in as that was a nice surprise, and thanks for the interesting article on this subject. URLs are stripped from comments but I believe this is the URL that you mentioned:

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/1999/02/17745

Very interesting read.

I posted this blog article because I noticed the strange behaviour going on all around on various forums, blogs, your site, and even here on ZDNet, particularly dealing with Linux and open source, and it got me curious. I find Techrights a very good source for information and I feel others should know about it, as well as all of the games that Microsoft plays to try and undermine open source and Linux, rather than simply coming out with a better product to market. Consumers of Microsoft software use it without realizing what all goes on behind the scenes. I realized years ago that open source and Linux is superior to proprietary software like Windows, and seeing the types of activities that Microsoft is involved in further increases my disgust with the company and their products, and makes me glad I made the decision to stop using their products years ago.

Thanks again for the comment and for the hard work. I look forward to reading future articles that continue to put this information out there so that people can make educated decisions on the software they use.
apexwm 15 April, 2011 19:54
Edit Delete Report offensive content Reply


@randomprogrammer:
As a test I did a Google search on the Spanair event you mentioned. And I selected 5 random articles from the search that all mention the cause of the crash to be a trojan-infected PC. "El Pais online newspaper reports that the ground computer responsible for triggering an alarm after three failures are reported in a plane failed to do so. The computer was infected with trojans", taken from:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/08/20/126225/Trojan-Infected-Computer-Linked-To-2008-Spanair-Crash

which references the original article in Spanish:

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/ordenador/Spanair/anotaba/fallos/aviones/tenia/virus/elpepuesp/20100820elpepinac_11/Tes

A trojan is a form of malware, so Roy's article seems correct to me.
apexwm 15 April, 2011 20:16
Edit Delete Report offensive content Reply


randomprogrammer,

[quote]
"The articles are very well written and all sources for the articles are documented". Let's look at that.

First, "well written". In fact they are childishly written. He plays dumb games with the names. He never talks about iPhone or iPad--they are always hypePhone and hypePad. The BBC is MSBBC. Florien Mueller is "Microsoft Florien". And so on and so on. But if anyone calls him "Spamowitz" or "Glen Schestowitz" he complains bitterly about how his enemies are attacking him.
[/quote]

Can you provide an example of me actually attacking these names? Like "Glen Schestowitz"? The childish comparison involving Beck was actually /amusing/ to me because I loathe Beck's opinions and even Fox 'News' had to let him go. I'm a liberal, not a Republican.

When I choose names like hypePhone and hypePad I try to make them funny, not insulting, and also a reflecting of reality. The FSF does the same thing (e.g. iBad, Swindle, Windows 7 Sins).

[quote]
Second, "documents". To be documented they need to cite verifiable THIRD PARTY sources.
[/quote]

Like the Comes vs Microsoft class action site? Done that. It has thousands of exhibits. Microsoft paid Conlin to have the site nuked, but many people had already grabbed copies and made identical mirrors with download logs which help verify authenticity.

[/quote]
His articles do have an impressive number of links in them. Most link back to earlier articles of his own. Try following those, and the links in those articles. It is like winning the lottery when you actually end up at a third party source and it supports what Schestowitz says it says.
[/quote]

I link to over 100 external articles per day.
Schestowitz 15 April, 2011 21:14
Report offensive content Reply


@apewxm;

Here's an article that goes over what the Spanair accident report said, with cites to the cockpit voice transcript and specific sections of the accident report:

http://news.electricalchemy.net/2010/08/malware-in-spanair-fatal-air-crash-case.html

The article you cite says in the first paragraph that the computer that had malware was at the airline's headquarters, and its function was to alert when a plane had three failures of the same component. The plane suffered a failure shortly before takeoff, the mechanics fixed it, and the plane took off. Then it crashed due to improper slats and flaps configuration, as is shown on the accident report.

The malware infected system wasn't even involved until about a day later. The maintenance reports get sent to headquarters and entered into the computer. That happens about a day after the work is done. It was at that point that an alert would have been sounded. There is *speculation* that malware would have prevented it.

However, that's irrelevant to the crash since the failure that should have been alerted was not the cause of the crash, and the crash occurred a day before the alert would have happened.

This is easy to find out if you ACTUALLY research, instead of just doing one Google search and taking a few random articles that all ultimately draw from the same speculative sources or mistranslations. Roy doesn't do actual research, so misses this, and continues to claim that malware caused the crash.
randomprogrammer 15 April, 2011 23:01
Report offensive content Reply


@randomprogrammer

You are grasping at straws and moving the goalposts now. The malware did *play a role* in the incident. Give it up...
Schestowitz 15 April, 2011 23:30
Report offensive content Reply


Typo correction: where I said $1 I meant $1m (in first comment). Big difference, some people may be able to mentally correct it based on context.
Schestowitz 15 April, 2011 23:38
Report offensive content Reply


@schestowitz: you said malware *caused* the crash. You have yet to explain how the possible failure of an alarm to go off hundreds of miles from the plane a day after the crash caused the crash.
randomprogrammer 15 April, 2011 23:39
Report offensive content Reply


You need to read the link you cited, http://techrights.org/2010/08/26/aviation-and-windows-2/ , more carefully, as well as consider the external sources. Put the burden of proof on the right sources as your allegation is misplaced.
Schestowitz 15 April, 2011 23:47
Report offensive content Reply


@Schestowitz

Why does the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanair_Flight_5022 make no mention of Microsoft or Windows? If you believe what you say, why haven't you corrected it? Won't you now give everyone the benefit of your expertise as an air-traffic investigator?

Your post, linked to above, says:

> Now there is compelling proof that Windows can cause flights to crash (or
> fail to prevent crashes due to malware). For those who don’t know, Spanair
> is a Microsoft shop (their Web site, actual operations, among more things)
> and their crash was caused by malware, which impeded the regular procedures
> that would otherwise have aborted or delayed takeoff [1, 2, 3, 4].

I've tried looking through your usual obfuscated set of meaningless self-referencing links, and I still can't see any indication that there is any truth at all in your assertion. Could you provide a link to an authoritative source, please? Perhaps the one that you will be adding to Wikipeida?

By "authoritative source" I mean something that is independent, well researched, fact-based and preferably official. I would not be shocked to discover that there are cranks, conspiracy theorities and anti-Microsoft bigots who speculate about such things on their hate-sites. However, there are also plenty of birthers, flat-earthers and various other screwballs who sincerely believe what they say, even though they are completely Cadbury's. The fact that you believe something does not make it true, especially not when it's provably wrong.

You don't have to comment: a link will do me just fine, thanks. You don't need to libel or attempt to smear me again.

Of course, I'm really sure that you would not make statements such as "compelling proof that Windows can cause flights to crash" unless you could prove it. Considering the number of people killed, it would be a truly despicable thing to make up. I'm sure we agree that no decent person would attempt to exploit such tragic deaths solely for the purpose of scoring trivial points in a juvenile operating system war.

Please note that this comment is part of my quest for truth. It does not recommend the use of any operating system, or any company's operating system, for any purpose.
Jack Schofield 16 April, 2011 01:16
Report offensive content Reply


That was easy, Jack. Google "malware spainair". First result is from MSNBC (which is partly owned by you-know-who):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38790670/ns/technology_and_science-security/

"Authorities investigating the 2008 crash of Spanair flight 5022 have discovered a central computer system used to monitor technical problems in the aircraft was infected with malware.

"An internal report issued by the airline revealed the infected computer failed to detect three technical problems with the aircraft, which if detected, may have prevented the plane from taking off, according to reports in the Spanish newspaper, El Pais."

Have a good day.
Schestowitz 16 April, 2011 01:27
Report offensive content Reply


> Why does the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanair_Flight_5022 make no
> mention of Microsoft or Windows? If you believe what you say, why haven't you corrected it?

Come on, Jack! That's plainly ridiculous! If it's so easy for someone to add such a reference, why would it be any more difficult for anyone else to remove it again? Someone (say) who wouldn't want such a reference to exist, for example...
Chris Rankin 16 April, 2011 01:46
Report offensive content Reply


Upon closer inspection, this gets even more interesting. I see that the said twitter account follows 33 people and also an account called "(http://twitter.com/)/ZDNetUK_Win7". I notice that alongside menu items at the top of *all* pages in ZDNet UK there is an oddly out-of-place section called "Windows 7" (and again, it's the only brand mentioned). I clicked on and it's purely promotional therein. It says: "ZDNet UK's special report covers a range of content, including reviews, articles and videos, to help you discover the key features in Microsoft's latest operating system, as well as the pitfalls you should be looking out for."

Paid endorsement from Microsoft, right? And if so, what can one deduce? I don't mean to heckle, but I think this issue need to be addressed because some months ago I was confronted by a man who had run an online "Vista" magazine (he hid this) and then proceeded to attacking Linux in IDG-owned Web sites. Disclosures are something people value.
Schestowitz 16 April, 2011 02:17
Report offensive content Reply


To be fair, there were Linux and Apple menu items too before. The menu items do change a lot
JamieKB 16 April, 2011 02:44
Report offensive content Reply


OK, thanks. Well, hopefully they'll add Android soon. It's really becoming quite the phenomenon ;-)
Schestowitz 16 April, 2011 02:47
Report offensive content Reply


I don't understand why the "Linux" tab was removed, there were some good articles in that section. It seems like the tab disappeared shortly after the final edition of Windows 7 was released.
apexwm 16 April, 2011 05:16
Edit Delete Report offensive content Reply


I would rather not imply so blindly that Microsoft paid for it (at least until someone can confirm/deny), but in general, Microsoft does not like competition and a paid endorsement requires that the competition is not even mentioned. I have gotten hold of OEM agreements (e.g. Acer, Dell) and there are explicit conditions imposed regarding what's visible and what's not, e.g. link to competing browser. But anyway, it would be useful to know why the only tab with a brand name says "Windows 7" and not even "Windows" or "Microsoft". By the way, we also have clear evidence that "[Vendor] recommends Windows 7" is a paid advertisement, it's not really a recommendation. A shop leaked the documents to us.
Schestowitz 16 April, 2011 08:39
Report offensive content Reply


While we recognise that there are members interested in this subject, I am going to remove certain of the posts made in this thread. This is mainly because they contravene the spirit of the community, in that they are campaigning, rather than in the spirit of discussion - they do not seem to welcome different viewpoints.

In addition, they make unsubstantiated harmful suggestions about companies - about ZDNet UK, for example. Some of these comments may place this site at legal risk.

In all, they contravene these specific parts of our code of conduct, which all members agree to when they create an account:

Don't power-post
Even if your comment is relevant to more than one story or blog, please don't post it in multiple places. Make just one comment on one story or write a blog entry about it.

Be legal
Don't use unlawful language (for instance, language that is libellous or obscene) or participate in other unlawful activities in the community – if you do, we will remove the posting without warning and are likely to close your account. You are responsible for all the content you post on the site, which includes making sure you don't break any applicable law.

In brief, this community is a forum for the discussion of business technology topics. If you have doubts or questions about the editorial integrity of ZDNet UK, please address them directly to the editor, Rupert Goodwins, or to me via email.

If you would like to discuss the issue with us further, please send an email to community.manager@zdnet.co.uk. All discussion about the removal of these posts will be removed from this thread.
Karen Friar 16 April, 2011 11:52
Report offensive content Reply


Another point, in response to comments above:

We change the Hot Topic tabs at the top of the page periodically. All of the special Hot Topics still exist and are updated all the time. You can find them either through search or via this link: http://www.zdnet.co.uk/hot-topics/

We also periodically add search-based topic tabs depending on the interest shown by readers.
Karen Friar 16 April, 2011 12:22
Report offensive content Reply


@Schestowitz

Sorry, but as usual, you have failed to justify your apparently despicable post.

> "Authorities investigating the 2008 crash of Spanair flight 5022 have
> discovered a central computer system used to monitor technical problems
> in the aircraft was infected with malware.
>
> "An internal report issued by the airline revealed the infected computer
> failed to detect three technical problems with the aircraft, which if detected,
> may have prevented the plane from taking off, according to reports in the
> Spanish newspaper, El Pais."

It's not good enough to quote a secondhand report which, even if it were correct, does not justify your claim that "Now there is compelling proof that Windows can cause flights to crash (or fail to prevent crashes due to malware)."

As you should know, the plane would have taken off anyway, because the data was not entered until after the plane had taken off. Also, the other fault reports would not have shown up at the time regardless of the presence of malware. This would be true even if Linux had been used, so you could with equally well have claimed (wrongly) that Linux "can cause flights to crash".

However, I asked you to provide an authoritative link, and it is beyond belief that you actually think an MSNBC news report quoting yet another news source meets these critera:

> By "authoritative source" I mean something that is independent, well researched,
> fact-based and preferably official.

In my opinion, you have failed to do this because you cannot do it, and I think that is because your "report" is based on anti-Microsoft prejuidice not on facts. Again, please point me to something that is "independent, well researched, fact-based and preferably official", not a secondhand website report.

Also, I note that you ignored my Wikipedia challenge. It is, after all, an open source encyclopedia, and it does attempt to tell the truth to the best of its ability. I think Wikipedia does not mention Microsoft or Windows in its report because the facts do not support your interpretation. Perhaps you don't have a working Wikipedia account? It would not surprise me if you had been blocked for spamming Wikipedia with false claims, but I'd be interested to see what useful contributions you have made. What's your handle?
Jack Schofield 16 April, 2011 12:48
Report offensive content Reply


Karen Friar,

I find the removal of about 7 of my comments rather insulting as they contained no obscenity and did not contain any improper material (you can unmask these comments for readers to judge). It is a form of censorship, which is why I was reluctant to comment in ZDNet to begin with, but I was polite and all my claims have verifiable sources to back them. So again, I'm very disappointed that you removed comments and then suggested that there was something unlawful in them. This is exactly the type of thing which makes Techrights necessary.
Schestowitz 16 April, 2011 12:52
Report offensive content Reply


If you send me the sources for your allegations in the removed posts to the email address I quoted (community.manager@zdnet.co.uk), I will be happy to consider re-instating them.

Only the posts that may be legally risky have been removed, rather than all of your posts; this does not constitute censorship.

As I suggested, all discussion of this should be done via email.
Karen Friar 16 April, 2011 13:01
Report offensive content Reply


Karen,

The insinuation that discussion like this needs to be done privately is counter-productive as I don't even have the comments you deleted (I will try Google cache). I think the action taken by the editorial team only serves to validate the original poster's point, which is about the targeting of a messenger for merely expressing an opinion (with sources) that others may find objectionable even though it's true. I don't want to start a whole debate about what's bad about censorship as there is plenty of literature about it. We take great pride in the fact that we never deleted any comments from Techrights (in over 4 years of running the site), not even those with vile language in them.

In my field of research (image analysis), if we had suppressed work which does not conform to the mainstream methods, do you know what would happen to scientific progress?

Respectfully,

Dr. Roy schestowitz
Schestowitz 16 April, 2011 13:08
Report offensive content Reply


@Chris Rankin
> Come on, Jack! That's plainly ridiculous! If it's so easy for someone to
> add such a reference, why would it be any more difficult for anyone else
> to remove it again? Someone (say) who wouldn't want such a reference
> to exist, for example...

I don't share your view that Wikipedia is the result a worthless collection of random edit wars, and I don't share your view that Wikipedia is controlled by Microsoft and its sympathasizers. Indeed, I think that Wikipedia does honestly try to arrive at the truth by communal means, and that true statements can be supported by authoritative external citation.

> add such a reference, why would it be any more difficult for anyone else

Curiously enough, edits and reversions are visible in Wikipedia if you click the "View history" tab, and disputes are usually visible in the Discussion section.

It's pretty common for cranks to claim that their conspiracy theories are being suppressed by "evil forces", but I don't see how this claim stands up in Wikipedia's case. If there is an authoritative, factual source, you can add useful information, and plenty of other Wikipedians will support you.

Incidentally, I'm amused that you expressed an opinion without bothering to read the Wikipedia report, or the edit history, or the discussion. If you had, you could have made a much more intelligent reply. I assume from your Dark Lord's response, that he couldn't be bothered to read it either, because he would have known something about his MSNBC link.
Jack Schofield 16 April, 2011 13:19
Report offensive content Reply


@Schestowitz: I don't think it is unreasonable to discuss sensitive matters in private. I have sent the removed comments to you at the email address associated with this account, so that you can continue the discussion with us.
Karen Friar 16 April, 2011 15:25
Report offensive content Reply


@Jack Schofield:
What on Earth?!?!?

> I don't share your view that Wikipedia is the result a worthless collection of random
> edit wars, and I don't share your view that Wikipedia is controlled by Microsoft and its
> sympathasizers.

*My* views?? I stated no such views. I simply pointed out your logical fallacy: if anyone can add something to Wikipedia then anyone can remove something too. So I don't see that the absence of something on Wikipedia proves anything at all.

> I assume from your Dark Lord's response ...

And Schestowitz is in no way my "Dark Lord". How *dare* you?! Do you actually *go out of your way* to insult the people who reply to you?

BTW, someone in the Wikipedia discussion *does* say "Blame Windows once again", and then links to a relevant article in Spanish along with its (poor) translation. But the contributor is just an IP address. The final Wikipedia article does indeed mention that there was (unspecified) "malware" on the airline's central computer system.

Why am I mentioning this? Simply because I am trying to understand what your point is!?
Chris Rankin 16 April, 2011 20:35
Report offensive content Reply


Still waiting for an explanation from Schestowitz how an alert that was due to come up the day AFTER the Spanair crash was supposed to somehow prevent the crash.

There was indeed an alert that was supposed to prevent the crash--from the on-board TOWS (Take Off Warning System). The TOWS system is designed to be active when the plane is on the ground, and inactive when the plane is in the air. It is possible that the TOWS system thought it was in the air, due to problems with the RAT (Ram Air Temperature) sensor. That plane had a problem with the RAT sensor just before take off, and the pilots went back to the gate to get it fixed. Mechanics "fixed" it by disabling the sensor.

It was the problem with the RAT sensor that would have been filed with (possibly) infected computer system at headquarters the next day, which should then have alerted that the RAT sensor needs to be looked at in more depth. Again, note that this alert would have happened at least a day after the crash.

After the RAT sensor was disabled by the ground crew, the pilots continued. The voice recorder shows that they then made several mistakes, since as using the wrong radio frequency to request clearance, and (most critically) not going through the required pre-takeoff checklist which would have had then check the position of the slats and flaps, which were in a position incompatible with a successful takeoff.

You can get all this from the accident investigation report--but you'll no doubt to continue to ignore that in favor of early speculative news reports and poor translations because the actual story doesn't fit with your agenda.
randomprogrammer 17 April, 2011 01:29
Report offensive content Reply


@apexwm

the fact that several comments from Roy have been removed from this thread by ZDNet's news and community editor because they make unsubstantiated claims and are legally risky says it all really.
miked2003 17 April, 2011 07:09
Report offensive content Reply


Roy asked for more examples of his poor research. Here's one from today. In http://techrights.org/2011/04/17/nokia-and-moles/ he writes "A MONTH ago we showed and explained that Microsoft employees often become Microsoft moles inside other companies because it's part of the contract with Microsoft". For that he cites his earlier article, http://techrights.org/2011/03/01/microsoft-employment-contracts/.

Let's look at that earlier article. That article talks about a lawsuit between Microsoft and a former executive, alleging the executive violated a non-compete agreement. Roy quotes frequent contributor gnufreex's interpretation of the contract, which is that if you leave Microsoft and go to another company you must spend your first year trying to align your new company with Microsoft's interests. You won't find any contract lawyer, labor lawyer, or judge, who would agree with that reading of the contract. (Gnufreex is quite an interesting character. My favorite was in the Boycott Novell IRC when he had a rant about how Linus is a subpar programmer who is anti-FOSS and just slapped his name on one GNU component to steal the rightful credit).

But it has now entered Boycott Novell canon that Microsoft contractually obligates ex-employees to spend a year secretly corrupting their new employers, and Roy cites it as fact in new articles.

Still think Roy's articles are well written and well sourced, apexwm?
randomprogrammer 17 April, 2011 19:47
Report offensive content Reply


Hmm, seems quite a few comments on this April 14th blog were written by people who only joined ZDNet on April 15th.

A few months ago we had an article that was very negative regarding Microsoft, about half a dozen new members responded to defend MS, all posting with strong USA West coast accents. Wonder how many of them pay their taxes in Redmond?
AndyPagin 18 April, 2011 10:39
Report offensive content Reply


"Let's look at that earlier article. That article talks about a lawsuit between Microsoft and a former executive, alleging the executive violated a non-compete agreement. "

I read this article and the link to the original Microsoft Employment Agreement does not render correctly so I was not able to read it directly: http://www.scribd.com/doc/49542881/Microsoft-Employment-Agreement . Hopefully it is available again at a later time.

As with any journalism or articles posted, articles may seem biased, and readers should be encouraged to draw their own conclusions based on the facts put forth. Readers may or may not agree with the authors. The same with the previous posts about the Spanair crash. There is evidence out there that supports the article on Techrights, and there are articles that do not. So which is it? We may never know. We can only make judgements on information posted on these events published by 3rd parties, since none of us were directly involved in the events.

"Hmm, seems quite a few comments on this April 14th blog were written by people who only joined ZDNet on April 15th. "

That is an interesting point, I guess time will tell to see if they stay on the site or disappear. One time I had somebody create a new account, post negative comments on about 10 articles all at once, then disappeared never to be heard from again.
apexwm 18 April, 2011 13:04
Edit Delete Report offensive content Reply


Wow, the vitroil behind some of these comments is staggering. And that is just the ones that haven't been removed.
Some of Roy's comments and articles may be speculation, but they are at least educated speculation and if his sources are second they are always indetifiable as such. Personally most microsoft products irritate me now and then, but not as much as the corporate attitude they display of rubbishing every other product out there - instead of improving their own.

@Karen Friar
may I suggest creating a seperate page to show posts removed from this blog so readers may judge/research for themselves. I sure the Zdnet legal team could come up with a disclaimer to protect your good selves from "posts that may be legally risky" or "unsubstantiated"
Dave Soldini via Facebook 18 April, 2011 13:09
Report offensive content Reply


sorry miss-type above. should be "second-hand" not "second"
Dave Soldini via Facebook 18 April, 2011 13:12
Report offensive content Reply


@AndyPagin
Coinspiracy theories are always entertaining, especially when they come with no facts and with no supporting evidence.
Jack Schofield 18 April, 2011 13:57
Report offensive content Reply


@Chris Rankin
> I simply pointed out your logical fallacy: if anyone can add something to
> Wikipedia then anyone can remove something too. So I don't see that the
> absence of something on Wikipedia proves anything at all.

In general, that's true, of course, but there are more than enough Microsoft haters around to assume that if Schestowitz's literal claim (see above) had a factual basis, it would have been inserted. In borderline cases, things get inserted and removed, but all this shows in the edit record and often in the discussion.

In this case, we already know that Schestowitz doesn't have a logical or factual leg to stand on. The *actual* cause of the crash had nothing at all to do with Microsoft Windows (the official reports to date and the safety recommendations don't even mention it). As you'll see if you read up on the case, the mechanical fault also wasn't one isolated to Spanair, and any serious research (which Schestowitz doesn't appear to have done) would have checked these cases too.

We are still waiting for Schestowitz to provide an authoritative link or other evidence, but his silence so far makes it a fair assumption, in my view, that he doesn't have any. He is also demonstrating a lack of respect for the official investigation into a crash in which many people died.

Now, it would be nice to know why Schestowitz is willing to ignore the facts presented by the CIAIAC to pursue his stated hatred of Microsoft, but it does help explain why so many sensible people think Techrights is untrustworthy, and why @apexwm's original post is misguided and regrettable. Indeed, Techrights seems to me to have a lot of characteristics that are familiar from hate sites
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/online_hate/deconst_online_hate.cfm

Obviously I didn't pick on this particular case as an example -- randomprogrammer did that.

> And Schestowitz is in no way my "Dark Lord". How *dare* you?! Do you
> actually *go out of your way* to insult the people who reply to you?

Sincere apologies for that. It was intended to be jocular, and in hindsight it didn't come off. Given the chance to edit, I could perhaps replace the "your" with "our". My subeditor should have caught it but apparently was asleep at the time....
Jack Schofield 18 April, 2011 14:55
Report offensive content Reply


@randomprogrammer
> My favorite was in the Boycott Novell IRC when he had a rant about how
> Linus is a subpar programmer who is anti-FOSS and just slapped his name
> on one GNU component to steal the rightful credit).

Perhaps Linus is too intelligent and too pragmatic for "Hatesite Roy" (aka BoycottBoy) and the Techrights crowd? Linus recently observed that hatred of Microsoft was a disease
http://slashdot.org/story/09/07/25/1757253/Linus-Calls-Microsoft-Hatred-a-Disease

I suspect Torvalds may be aware that sites like Techrights are damaging the open source movement, but I wonder if Schestowitz sees that as a good thing?

Schestowitz has told me he supports "Free software" not "open source", which is the standard line from the GNU and FSF founder Richard Stallman. However, Richard has also pointed out that: "It is a mistake to focus our criticism narrowly on Microsoft. Indeed, Microsoft is evil, since it makes non-free software. Even worse, it implements Digital Restrictions Management in that software. But many other companies do one or both of these."
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fs-motives.html

Readers interested in the background could do worse than read my 1998 interview with Richard Stallman, "The code of the freedom fighter", which is no longer available on the Guardian website.
http://www.resonant.org/text/news/online.guardian.co.uk-910792139-stallman.html

I've been following this stuff for 20-odd years, and must say that it has never been as nasty as it has been since the arrival of newbies like Schestowitz.
Jack Schofield 18 April, 2011 15:46
Report offensive content Reply


@Dave Soldini via Facebook
> Some of Roy's comments and articles may be speculation, but they are at
> least educated speculation and if his sources are second they are always
> indetifiable as such.

If Schestowitz's comments actually were "educated speculation", and presented as such, don't you think more people would find them acceptable?
Jack Schofield 18 April, 2011 15:56
Report offensive content Reply


> Sincere apologies for that. It was intended to be jocular, and in hindsight it didn't come off.

OK, thank you.
Chris Rankin 18 April, 2011 17:33
Report offensive content Reply


After all these years I still find it incredible that so many people can be so disgusting in how they communicate with another human being just because they are hiding behind a computer. Anyway I have experienced many examples of Microsoft Apologist trolling over the years here's a good example for starters http://www.linuxtoday.com/search.php3?tbquery=omniprovident, I wonder what omni's called these days?

Barnie
giltrapbj 19 April, 2011 02:48
Report offensive content Reply


The copy of the Microsoft employment contract in the Miszewski case on Scribd (http://www.scribd.com/doc/49542881/Microsoft-Employment-Agreement) works fine for me. Try logging in. That should give you the option to download the PDF which may help.

As far as Spanair goes, it is your choice. You can believe the sites that say malware caused the crash even though if you trace their cites back they all end up at sites that are speculating based on the fact that one machine at Spanair headquarters might have had malware which might have interfered with issuing a maintenance alert. Or you can believe the sites that cite extensively from the accident report and from experts familiar with the actual flight deck and systems of the plane and its operation, and that point out that the event though should have triggered an alarm at headquarters occurred just before the flight took off, meaning the alarm would have been due AFTER the crash. (And we still don't know if that alarm did in fact go off or not, which makes Roy's assertion that malware caused the crash all the more ridiculous).
randomprogrammer 19 April, 2011 03:10
Report offensive content Reply


@Barnie
If omniprovident is the worst you've had to suffer then you should be giving thanks. It's not as though there's a shortage of Linux trolls or Anti-Microsoft trolls or pro-Apple trolls. Any dissension gets magnified on a fanboy site like Linux Today, where it's seen as apostasy, but they all work like pseudo-religious cults. The anti-Mono faction might be one the worst, and Schestowitz is involved in that through another hate site, Boycott Novell. (He didn't found it, but I seem to recall the founder left in disgust. Maybe someone could Google that for me.) Anyway, in a guest post on Linux Today (which is why your comment reminded me), Jo Shields wrote:

"Many of those who advertise themselves as anti-Mono are, quite frankly, frightening. Calling for the deaths of Microsoft employees (see comments on Boycott Novell), or trying to have people who make positive comments about Mono fired (see recent comments on Ubuntu mailing lists), or making insinuations about anyone who does not agree with them (see pretty much every news post on Boycott Novell itself) - this is ugly behaviour, the absolute worst kind of advert for the "Free Software community" imaginable. If people want to be "against" Mono, then there are sane ways to do it - for example, by working on or packaging alternative software. Calling for people to be expelled from Free Software communities because they don't work on apps you like is, in short, the antithesis of supporting Freedom."
http://blog.linuxtoday.com/blog/2009/06/why-mono-is-des.html

I do not know how accurate these specific accusations might be (the post lacks supporting links) but it does reflect the *feeling* that people get in this area.

Personally, I'm happy for Schestowitz to use or not use whatever software he likes, and that goes for everybody else as well. That doesn't mean there is any justification for attacking people who make different choices.
Jack Schofield 19 April, 2011 11:51
Report offensive content Reply


"The copy of the Microsoft employment contract in the Miszewski case on Scribd (http://www.scribd.com/doc/49542881/Microsoft-Employment-Agreement) works fine for me. Try logging in. That should give you the option to download the PDF which may help."

Unfortunately I still am not able to download or view the document. Nothing on www.scribd.com will render correctly for me in Firefox 4 nor IE8. I've Googled for an alternative source and have found nothing at the moment but I'm not wasting much more time with it. I guess it will be something to come back to later.
apexwm 20 April, 2011 13:44
Edit Delete Report offensive content Reply


@ apexwm. "Unfortunately I still am not able to download or view the document. Nothing on www.scribd.com will render correctly for me in Firefox 4 nor IE8"

How's this for irony!

I succeeded, without any difficulty, in opening the page and downloading the PDF document using the latest (unstable) version of Google Chrome running on Ubuntu (9.04, for reasons I have explained before).

Makes interesting reading.
Moley 20 April, 2011 15:43
Report offensive content Reply


@apexwm. Firefox didn't work for me either, I didn't make that clear. Opera did also work for me in Ubuntu, albeit somewhat slowly, experiencing rendering issues. I haven't tried Internet Explorer yet.
Moley 20 April, 2011 17:13
Report offensive content Reply


@apexwm. Further to a response to your last comment from Jack S, but which has now been removed/withdrawn, http://www.scribd.com/doc/49542881/Microsoft-Employment-Agreement does, sort of, open with Internet Explorer in Windows XP and Windows 7, but it does not render properly and Internet Explorer locks up. At least that's my experience anyway.
Moley 20 April, 2011 18:07
Report offensive content Reply


Moley : Thanks for the additional info. It seems that there are no other sources of this document either (that I could find). If I find the extra time I'll try some other browsers/platforms such as Chrome. This is clearly not complaint code on that page, otherwise it would render in any browser.
apexwm 20 April, 2011 18:18
Edit Delete Report offensive content Reply


@Moley
> Further to a response to your last comment from Jack S, but which
> has now been removed/withdrawn

Indeed, apparently sarcasm is no longer acceptable ;-)

> but it does not render properly and Internet Explorer locks up.
> At least that's my experience anyway.

The experience of the site is certainly horrible in IE7, and when I tried it, it was dog slow and took 50% of my CPU. However, if you have enough RAM and enough patience, it does sort of work.

Whether it's worth the effort is another matter, since it doesn't look as though Schetowitz is coming back. I assume he is unable to produce any authoritative independent evidence for his Spanair claims, as requested. but isn't man enough to admit it, and he won't do what I think any decent human being would do, and remove it. I trust anyone who thinks techrights.org is based on real research or a desire for truth will draw the appropriate conclusion.
Jack Schofield 20 April, 2011 21:30
Report offensive content Reply


One of Roy’s biggest problems is that most of the sources of information he uses are articles posted on the Internet, usually by bloggers. The Internet has set the bar very low on what is considered journalism. Here’s a great example: http://techrights.org/2011/04/01/rethink-of-software-patents/

In this article Roy states, "The Obama administration is said to considering a ‘fundamental rethink of software patents’…"

OK. So where does he get this idea? He links to this article from a blog called Silicon Valley Sleuth: http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/silicon-valley-sleuth-blog/2031942/obama-plans-fundamental-rethink-software-patents

So far, so good, the headline declares, "Obama plans fundamental rethink of software patents." But nowhere in the article is software even mentioned. Not even a quote related to software is given. The article only talks about the wish to make the patent application process faster. Scour the Internet and try to find Obama or any of his cabinet members even hint about computer software patents, you'll come up empty handed. What you will find are other articles, blogs, and postings that all reference back to Silicon Valley Sleuth's bogus article. As usual, another Internet blogger is just plain wrong. That's OK for Roy, though. Right or wrong, as long as it adds fuels to fire it's fit to publish.

This is something I hope a lot of people make note of. Anyone with a little bit of time and money can set up a professional looking website and distribute their own version of the truth. FOSS advocates in particular will declare that "everyday people from the community" are more trustworthy than the "evil corporate news media." In reality, everyday people are just as crooked and biased. Roy is proof of that. He puts advocacy before truth, and I'm willing to bet apexwm does the same.
Twitter Sock 37 21 April, 2011 05:04
Report offensive content Reply


If you create a scribd account, you should be able to use the download link to download the PDF. Meanwhile, here is the non-compete section of the contract:

"10. Non-Competition and Non-Solicitation. While employed at MICROSOFT and for a period of one year thereafter, I will not (a) engage in any competitive activities or accept employment by or agree to provide services to any person or entity that engages in competitive activities ("competitive activities" meaning the development, production or provision of any product, service, technology, product feature or project that is or is intended to be competitive with one or more products, services, technologies, product features or projects, including actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development, on which I worked or about which I learned confidential or proprietary information or trade secrets while employed at MICROSOFT or a MICROSOFT subsidiary) or (b) encourage, induce, attempt to induce, or assist another to induce or attempt to induce and person employed by MICROSOFT or by one of MICROSOFT's subsidiaries to terminate his or her employment with MICROSOFT or its subsidiary or to work for any entity other than MICROSOFT or its subsidiary. Further, for a period of one year after the termination of my employment with MICROSOFT, I agree that I will not render services to any client or customer of MICROSOFT for which I performed services during the twelve months prior to leaving MICROSOFT's employ. If during or after my employment with MICROSOFT I seek work elsewhere, whether as an employee, consultant or in any other capacity, I will provide a copy of this Agreement to all persons and entities by whom I am seeking to be hired or with whom I am seeking to do business before accepting any employment or engagement by them. I agree that the restrictions in this paragraph are reasonable in light of, among other things, the global and highly competitive markets in which MICROSOFT and its subsidiaries operate."

It, of course, does not support what Boycott Novell and their source claim.
randomprogrammer 21 April, 2011 08:16
Report offensive content Reply


In an article posted yesterday on Techrights.org entitled "Mono is Microsoft", Roy Schestowitz writes:

"Microsoft has already become a contributor to Mono. Its own code is right in there and parts of Mono are licensed under Microsoft licences. Some members of the Mono team are former Microsoft employees, who still serve Microsoft’s interests; they find Android to push their APIs into, as we explained most recently (announcements come from Novell, which was paid by Microsoft). They advocate pushing more Mono also into Linux, the kernel. Yes, that’s just the most recent example of the former Microsoft employee recommending that Linux adopts C#."

Let me break this down for you.

1. "Microsoft has already become a contributor to Mono. Its own code is right in there and parts of Mono are licensed under Microsoft licences."

This is partially true, but judging by the rest of his anti-Mono rants, it is clear that he presents this in order to FUD Mono by making people believe that the licenses Microsoft has used are incompatible with the GPL. The fact is that Microsoft has licensed their code under the Apache2 license which is compatible with even the GPLv3. Microsoft also didn't contribute this code specifically to Mono, they released it as Free Software and Mono has incorporated it into the project. For those interested, the pieces that Mono has pulled into their codebase are things like the DLR, ASP.NET MVC(1, 2, 3), etc.
TheKernel 21 April, 2011 12:26
Report offensive content Reply


2. "Some members of the Mono team are former Microsoft employees, who still serve Microsoft’s interests;"

I think most people would conclude from this statement that some of the core developers of Mono (and more likely, Novell employees working on Mono in particular) were once employed by Microsoft. This is 100% factually incorrect. Not a single Novell employee working on Mono has ever been employed by Microsoft. Nor have any of the non-Novell core contributors.

Secondly, the assertion (as was raised in a previous comment by randomprogrammer) that ex-Microsoft employees continue to secretly work for Microsoft after they leave is ludicrous.

3. "(announcements come from Novell, which was paid by Microsoft)"

The announcement he links to is: http://www.utahbusiness.com/issues/articles/10912/2011/04/novell_enables_development_of__net_applications_for_android

Where does he get the idea that it was paid for by Microsoft? Where is the proof?
TheKernel 21 April, 2011 12:27
Report offensive content Reply


4. "They advocate pushing more Mono also into Linux, the kernel. Yes, that’s just the most recent example of the former Microsoft employee recommending that Linux adopts C#."

The link in this assertion is to: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/linux-world-domination-keith-curtis,12566.html

This seems to insinuate that one of the ex-Microsoft employees that he claimed is on the "Mono team" wrote that article at Tom's Hardware. Keith Curtis, however, has never contributed to Mono at all nor does he work for Novell on the Mono team (or at Novell at all, in fact).

And these were just the inaccuracies in the first paragraph!

How can this be considered "well researched"?
TheKernel 21 April, 2011 12:28
Report offensive content Reply


Addendum:

No where in the Tom's Hardware article does Keith Curtis push for Mono to be incorporated into the Linux kernel that I can find. As far as I can tell, he's talking about using a GC'd language (like C#) in user-mode applications.

Yet another false claim by Roy Schestowitz. Anyone keeping a tally?
TheKernel 21 April, 2011 12:37
Report offensive content Reply


randomprogrammer,

As someone who has read Techrights the way you suggest, and followed the links, I haven't found the issues you claim. I found that when there is a back link, the back linked article links to a source document, like an article on ZDNet, the NYTimes, etc.

Techrights is usually pretty accurate. Usually. Like all of us, there are mistakes. When there are, they get corrected in later posts, or in an update.

Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
The Mad Hatter 21 April, 2011 13:04
Report offensive content Reply


TheMadHatter:

In light of the evidence provided by randomprogrammer proving that Techrights was wrong about both the Spanair crash AND the Microsoft employment contract, when can we expect Roy to correct his articles on Techrights?

Likewise, when can we expect Roy to correct the "Mono is Microsoft" article located at http://techrights.org/2011/04/20/making-microsoft-stronger/ ?
TheKernel 21 April, 2011 13:23
Report offensive content Reply


I'd also like to point out some hypocrisy. Roy Schestowitz frequently attacks companies for filing for software patents and claims that it is immoral.

Funny, then, that the University of Manchester, where he is employed, also has software patents. Take for example, this one:

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=5cEVAAAAEBAJ&dq=university+of+manchester&as_psrg=1

Even more amusing, it was submitted by the very department Roy claims to work for:

Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Manchester, Manchester, England

You can see this at: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F6876755

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Isn't that how the saying goes?
TheKernel 21 April, 2011 15:17
Report offensive content Reply


"He puts advocacy before truth, and I'm willing to bet apexwm does the same."

If I state something as a fact (not an opinion) that is not true, please point it out, as it would have not been intentional. This blog is an opinion, and even though some examples on Techrights have been pointed out that are questionable, there are other examples where articles are well supported, and I still believe Techrights a good source of information. I don't read every article on Techrights. But I do read articles here and there mostly related to open source and GNU/Linux. Personally I've found them to be well documented and sourced. As mentioned several times, how far you want to trust the information and sources provided is a personal choice.

Here's an example of an article I read on Techrights somewhat recently that caught my eye:

http://techrights.org/2010/09/20/anti-linux-gurus-and-switzerland/

At the time the article was published, the link to the Microsoft Careers site was still active, and it the exerpt from the Techrights article was verbatim. Yes, there are other links in this article that point to other articles on Techrights. And yes there are some opinionated statements in it, too, and some drawn conclusions. But overall I don't see anything in this article that doesn't have something to back it up.
apexwm 21 April, 2011 15:57
Edit Delete Report offensive content Reply


TheKernel :

"I'd also like to point out some hypocrisy. Roy Schestowitz frequently attacks companies for filing for software patents and claims that it is immoral.

Funny, then, that the University of Manchester, where he is employed, also has software patents."

An interesting fact however I'm not sure how that is relevant, unless somehow Roy was directly involved.
apexwm 21 April, 2011 18:27
Edit Delete Report offensive content Reply


"This is partially true, but judging by the rest of his anti-Mono rants, it is clear that he presents this in order to FUD Mono by making people believe that the licenses Microsoft has used are incompatible with the GPL. The fact is that Microsoft has licensed their code under the Apache2 license which is compatible with even the GPLv3. Microsoft also didn't contribute this code specifically to Mono, they released it as Free Software and Mono has incorporated it into the project. For those interested, the pieces that Mono has pulled into their codebase are things like the DLR, ASP.NET MVC(1, 2, 3), etc."

No. In fact this code is released by Microsoft under Microsoft Permissive Licence and some dual licenced under Apache 2.
Notice the "some"!?

What you did not care to explain is that in fact Microsoft hold patents in .net and in fact the 'promise' is not a compulsive patent grant.
What you did not care to explain is that in fact Microsoft did not 'promise' not to sue the non-ECMA parts and there's more than ECMA implementation in Mono

So, you are the one trying to call liar to another person!?

"People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Isn't that how the saying goes?"

Indeed!
jocaferro 21 April, 2011 21:37
Report offensive content Reply


jocaferro:

Yes, you are correct. My apologies for being unclear that ASP.NET MVC is not licensed under Apache2.

However, hopefully you have noted that both the MS-PL and the Apache2 licenses grant patent protection. So Mono including any of the pieces by Microsoft under either license does not pose a patent threat to Mono.

As far as the rest of your FUD, please read the following statement by Miguel de Icaza which addresses your concerns:

http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2010/Dec-09.html#comment-112257759

Between the Microsoft Community Promise (which covers ECMA), the MS-PL'd code and the Apache2 licensed code, the core parts of Mono (i.e. the parts used by the Linux applications written in Mono) are covered.

P.S. It looks like the Linux kernel was found to infringe on a patent: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/google/google-infringes-on-linux-patent-5-million-judgment/2912

People focusing on FUDing Mono should rethink their priorities. Amusingly, the very people who get all upset about FUD about the Linux kernel infringing patents are quite hypocritical in FUDing Mono. Don't you agree?
TheKernel 21 April, 2011 22:03
Report offensive content Reply


jocaferro:

BTW, I take it from your silence on my other three arguments that you concede those points. Those alone illustrate the poor research that Roy performed on that article (and he reuses those same "facts" over and over in many of his attacks on Mono).
TheKernel 21 April, 2011 22:39
Report offensive content Reply


Please explain how ASP.NET MVC being under MS-PL instead of Apache2 makes Mono violate patents.

MS-PL grants patent protection, it just isn't compatible with GPLv3 (which is no big deal because a lot of Free Software licenses aren't compatible with GPLv3, including other GNU licenses!!!)
TheKernel 22 April, 2011 01:01
Report offensive content Reply


When I wrote my original comment above, I was talking about desktop applications only using Microsoft code licensed under Apache2 (but failed to make this clear, and I'm sorry). Desktop applications (such as those found in Ubuntu) do not use ASP.NET MVC at all. Do you even know what ASP.NET MVC is? It's a web framework - i.e. completely useless for desktop applications.
TheKernel 22 April, 2011 01:04
Report offensive content Reply


My slip-up about which frameworks were under which patent-granting license is not a "lie", and it is irrelevant anyway. Both licenses grant patent rights and the important one, the DLR, *is* under the Apache2 license as can be seen here:

http://dlr.codeplex.com/license

Just as I said.

The fact remains that whether some of Microsoft's frameworks that Mono includes are under the MS-PL or Apache2 is irrelevant as to whether or not Mono infringes patents as you claim.
TheKernel 22 April, 2011 01:14
Report offensive content Reply


You can write GPLv3 compatible applications built on Mono as long as you don't use ASP.NET MVC - what's your point?

If you decide to use ASP.NET MVC then you need to conform to the licenses of the libraries you use, same as if you were writing in application in any other language/platform.
TheKernel 22 April, 2011 01:16
Report offensive content Reply


"My slip-up about which frameworks were under which patent-granting license is not a "lie", and it is irrelevant anyway."
It was not a slip-up since you did mention ASP.NET!
And:
"DLR, ASP.NET MVC(1, 2, 3), etc."
This is a lie and is relevant!
jocaferro 22 April, 2011 01:24
Report offensive content Reply


If that's the best you can do, you've lost the argument.
TheKernel 22 April, 2011 01:26
Report offensive content Reply


Yes I lost. Many time feedind...
jocaferro 22 April, 2011 01:37
Report offensive content Reply


@The Mad Hatter
> Techrights is usually pretty accurate. Usually. Like all of us, there are mistakes.
> When there are, they get corrected in later posts, or in an update.

That's one of the funniest things I've ever read. The Mad Hatter is well self-named.

@apexwm
> there are other examples where articles are well supported, and I still believe
> Techrights a good source of information

That could be the second funniest. If you really think "Techrights a good source of information", what you are actually saying is that you haven't done enough proper research. Techrights is a *terrible* source of information. In fact, it's worse than useless, because you honestly can't rely on it.

And if you have to do all the research again, then you might as well do the research anyway, and skip Schestovitz's juvenile diatribes.

The main function Techrights serves is to confirm the biases of people who are biased, and that's actually not all that uncommon as a strategy. Its efffects are well known, and I suggest you read up on "confirmation bias". (*) Schestovitz suffers from "confirmation bias" to the point where I'd wonder about his mental health.

Techrights' obvious secondary function (if it's not its primary function) is to feed Schestowitz's ego. I'm entirely unqualified to do amateur psyshology, but I wonder if he's overcompensating because he feels so inadequate. If you can't get people's respect, I guess you can get them to hate you. Indeed, if you're sufficiently paranoid, you can portray yourself as some sort of oppressed minority, and that's much better than being ignored. Do any real health specialists have a view?

(*) Obligatory joke: once you know about "confirmation bias" you see it everywhere ;-)
Jack Schofield 22 April, 2011 01:52
Report offensive content Reply


@jocaferro
> I think you're attacking more and more because you know he cannot defend himself!

But he can. There is *nothing* to stop Schestowitz defending himself here, on exactly the same terms as everybody else.

My *opinion* is that he's stopped posting here because he can't justify his arguments, because they are not based on fact. Also, I surmise that he is not mentally strong enough to face up to being proven wrong. If he thought he stood any chance of winning the argument, do you really think he would have quit?
Jack Schofield 22 April, 2011 02:07
Report offensive content Reply


As you say - it's your *opinion*.

Personally if someone censor one or more comments without any valid argument I feel I will never return there. For me is my honour being attacked but for others maybe their honour has no value. As their *opinions* in fact...
jocaferro 22 April, 2011 11:53
Report offensive content Reply


According to the comment by Karen, above, his comments were removed for making accusations that he could not back up with facts.

Funnily enough, that's exactly the trend that randomprogrammer, Jack, myself and others have been pointing out occurs on his own website as well, which is exactly why it is unreliable as a source of information (unless, of course, all you care about is "confirmation bias").
TheKernel 22 April, 2011 11:57
Report offensive content Reply


According to Karen. Hum...
Not according to the 7 posted in Techrights, right?
I believe the editor had the perception that she is doing the right thing. Reading them it's not my opinion but who am I?
As I said before I'm not here deffending Roy. As a matter of fact I don't always agree with him. For example, in the Spanair accident I disagree with the post. Not because the mention of Microsoft but in fact that was an accident and people died. If I post about an accident I'll never mention the causes so I'll never mention Microsoft or other OS. Nowadays we all know that in an accident sometime/somewhere/somehow an OS will be envolved so for me thats not worth mentioning. But this is me and you or Roy may have a different opinion. It's yours choice and I'll respect but I'm not loosing time with that. Usually I began reading and when I don't like - next. The same here with some opinions
jocaferro 22 April, 2011 13:54
Report offensive content Reply


I'm sorry, jocaferro, but Karen has far more credibility than Mr. Schestowitz.
TheKernel 22 April, 2011 14:24
Report offensive content Reply


So what you are trying to say is - the 7 comments publish by Roy are false?
Another uncommitted accusation coming from you?
jocaferro 22 April, 2011 15:16
Report offensive content Reply


@jocaferro
> As you say - it's your *opinion*.

No, that's not true, and that's not what I said. It is a FACT that Schestowitz could defend himself here if he wanted to. It is my OPINION that he isn't doing it because he knows he has lost the argument and, basically, doesn't have the guts to stand up like a man.

> Personally if someone censor one or more comments without any valid
> argument I feel I will never return there.

That has not happened, and it's misleading to pretend that it has. It's not censorship to withhold a comment while discussing via email whether or not it is justified. This has happened to me, and I've simply answered the questions that I have been asked. If someone cannot cope with this then I do not think they are honourable people, even if they want to pretend otherwise.

Mind you, I have high standards. I don't think people who post complete tosh under anonymous identities are honourable and worthwhile people either. This is one bit of credit I will always award Schestowitz.
Jack Schofield 22 April, 2011 16:06
Report offensive content Reply


jocaferro:

As has been demonstrated in this thread multiple times, Mr. Schestowitz has a habit of making claims that he cannot back up with facts. Is it really so hard to believe that the 7 of his comments that were deleted fell into the same category?

In case you've forgotten:

1. Schestowitz claimed that the Spanair crash was *caused by* malware on a Windows computer ("their crash was caused by malware"). This was demonstrated to be inaccurate thanks to the official report that randomprogrammer linked to.

2. Schestowitz claimed "Some members of the Mono team are former Microsoft employees, who still serve Microsoft’s interests;"

Not a shred of evidence supports that *any* ex-Microsoft employees are employed by Novell's Mono team (now or any time in the past).

His second assertion in that statement falls flat on its face simply due to the fact that his first accusation is false.

3. Schestowitz claims "(announcements come from Novell, which was paid by Microsoft)".

Once again, no proof of these allegations.

4. Schestowitz claims "They advocate pushing more Mono also into Linux, the kernel. Yes, that’s just the most recent example of the former Microsoft employee recommending that Linux adopts C#."

Again, provably false. All you have to do is read the article Schestowitz linked to as "evidence". Keith Curtis says nothing about putting Mono into the Linux kernel, he's talking about how using garbage collected languages in user-mode applications is a good idea. GC'd languages include languages like Python (which is what he seems to recommend on his blog).

Based on this evidence, if I'm to choose to believe Karen Friar or Roy Schestowitz, the choice is clear.
TheKernel 22 April, 2011 16:21
Report offensive content Reply


@jocaferro

> For example, in the Spanair accident I disagree with the post. Not because
> the mention of Microsoft but in fact that was an accident and people died.

Those of us who have looked into the Spanair incident are not "disagreeing" with the post, we're simply pointing out that it is factually wrong. It is, as a matter of fact, nonsense. This is not a matter of opinion.

> If I post about an accident I'll never mention the causes so I'll never mention
> Microsoft or other OS. Nowadays we all know that in an accident sometime/
> somewhere/somehow an OS will be envolved so for me thats not worth mentioning.

You can do what you like. However, the crash investigators have made the effort to find out the reasons for the crash, and this is important because nobody wants the same thing to happen again. Neither of the reports published so far mentions Windows or any other OS, and neither does the Safety Recommendation, because no OS was implicated in causing the crash.

> But this is me and you or Roy may have a different opinion. It's yours choice
> and I'll respect but I'm not loosing time with that.

You appear to have a problem distinguishing between fact and opinion. You also appear to be incapable of distinguishing between a mistake (one admitted and apologised for) and a lie. Neither of these things does you any credit. Schestowitz has the same problems, only worse. I hope for your sake that your mind hasn't been contaminated by Techrights.
Jack Schofield 22 April, 2011 16:23
Report offensive content Reply


"Based on this evidence, if I'm to choose to believe Karen Friar or Roy Schestowitz, the choice is clear."
You're still trying to diverge from what I said. And what I said is that I read the 7 comments and I can't see nothing so "dangerous" to ZDNet!
And what I see is Roy trying to defend himself.
This is what I see in those 7 comments.
As I said before I believe that Karen saw something that could be dangerous.
That's not a question of credibility or believing. It's simply a question of interpretation of the text in those comments.
So unless those comments are false my opinion is taken.
jocaferro 22 April, 2011 21:17
Report offensive content Reply


"You appear to have a problem distinguishing between fact and opinion. You also appear to be incapable of distinguishing between a mistake (one admitted and apologised for) and a lie. "
I'm perfectly capable of distinguishing that. I I'm perfectly capable of not distinguishing the admission and aploogizing.
What I distinguish is another try to obsfucate the real problem. And the real problem is - for people like 'TheKernel' it's impossible to have mistakes like this. Or slip-up's...
And why I believe it's impossible?
Because if he has this kind of mistakes he doesn't know nothing about what he's trying to explain!
But that's not the *fact* insn't it?

"I hope for your sake that your mind hasn't been contaminated by Techrights"
Thanks for uour care about my mind. I can promise you that I'm not contaminated by Techrights. And not by you of course. The only thing I have been contaminated is by the fragrancy of freedom and think for myself. I choose the hard way but I can live with this.
jocaferro 22 April, 2011 21:34
Report offensive content Reply


"You can do what you like. "
Thank you.
"However..."
Well thanked to soon?
jocaferro 22 April, 2011 21:40
Report offensive content Reply


@jocaferro
> And the real problem is - for people like 'TheKernel' it's impossible to have mistakes like this.

It believe it is possible for anyone to make a mistake and apologise for it, though it does appear to be beyond Schestowitz, and I'm not too sure about you. If you are not free to forgive and forget, is your freedom actually worth anything?
Jack Schofield 22 April, 2011 21:56
Report offensive content Reply


Of course I'm willing to forgive and forget someone who makes a mistake. What I not willing to forgive and forget is "the rest of your FUD" and the fact that he assumed the teacher role:
- "Let me break this down for you."
So in face of this "break this down" lesson of the self-proclaimed guru whom can consider/believe that was a mistake instead of an intended obsfucation?
jocaferro 22 April, 2011 23:07
Report offensive content Reply


Thank you for your comment, but I believe we've reached the end of useful discussion on this particular blog post. A reminder: At ZDNet UK we provide a forum for reasonable exchange of views on business technology topics.

We are now closing comments on this post. If you would like to discuss this with us, please send an email to community.manager@zdnet.co.uk, but please also be aware that the Easter holiday may slow a response down.
Karen Friar 23 April, 2011 00:10
Report offensive content Reply