Maybe I'm failing to fully understand the article but it seems that the two subjects involved here are not Linux and Microsoft, but rather Canonical (a private, for-profit company, which mantains one of the many Linux distributions, a distribution which, among other things, gives away the user's search data because of a lucrative agreement with Amazon) and Microsoft (another private, for-profit company).
It's techrights.org. Any failure is on their part, not yours, since it is crackpot conspiracy site that blames Microsoft for everything that they don't like.
They blamed Microsoft for the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, accused Bill Gates of purposefully spreading polio in Africa as part of his plan of genocide against brown people to pave the way for the west to re-colonize Africa, and have said that the governments of France and Britain are directly under the control of Microsoft.
If they ever actually get anything right it is an accident, and even then they will find some way to phrase it that is borderline incoherent.
Most of the time their sources are just earlier articles of their own, and if you then go read those and check their sources, you usually just find more techrights.org links. This can go on for several levels. When you do find an offsite link finally it often does not claim what they cited it before.
It should be on the list of domains that are banned from HN, since on those rare occasions when they say something that is not wrong there is always a massively better source that could have been submitted.
It's techrights.org. Any failure is on their part, not yours, since it is crackpot conspiracy site that blames Microsoft for everything that they don't like.
This actually seems like a proper description? I never heard of the site before just now, nor read an article, but after the first few sentences (and links therein, like "MS is turning Eclipse into a proprietary tool") my shitstorm/rant/wherethehellisalltheevidencebehindtheseclaims-radar was turning deeply red :P
The article is all over the place, but the way I understand it Canonical is just one example of a broader issue. Rakuten is another example he named.
Obviously Linux itself isn't subject, since Microsoft can't sue Linux. Linux also can't pay patent fees. This will always be about users of Linux, and Canonical is a particularly visible and outspoken Linux user.
Comments
Maybe I'm failing to fully understand the article but it seems that the two subjects involved here are not Linux and Microsoft, but rather Canonical (a private, for-profit company, which mantains one of the many Linux distributions, a distribution which, among other things, gives away the user's search data because of a lucrative agreement with Amazon) and Microsoft (another private, for-profit company).
It's techrights.org. Any failure is on their part, not yours, since it is crackpot conspiracy site that blames Microsoft for everything that they don't like.
They blamed Microsoft for the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, accused Bill Gates of purposefully spreading polio in Africa as part of his plan of genocide against brown people to pave the way for the west to re-colonize Africa, and have said that the governments of France and Britain are directly under the control of Microsoft.
If they ever actually get anything right it is an accident, and even then they will find some way to phrase it that is borderline incoherent.
Most of the time their sources are just earlier articles of their own, and if you then go read those and check their sources, you usually just find more techrights.org links. This can go on for several levels. When you do find an offsite link finally it often does not claim what they cited it before.
It should be on the list of domains that are banned from HN, since on those rare occasions when they say something that is not wrong there is always a massively better source that could have been submitted.
It's techrights.org. Any failure is on their part, not yours, since it is crackpot conspiracy site that blames Microsoft for everything that they don't like.
This actually seems like a proper description? I never heard of the site before just now, nor read an article, but after the first few sentences (and links therein, like "MS is turning Eclipse into a proprietary tool") my shitstorm/rant/wherethehellisalltheevidencebehindtheseclaims-radar was turning deeply red :P
You've got to be kidding. I'd like to read that. It should be funny.
Here you go: "Microsoft Windows BSOD Caused Deepwater Horizon Disaster" [1]
[1] http://techrights.org/2010/07/23/blue-screen-of-death-and-bp...
The article is all over the place, but the way I understand it Canonical is just one example of a broader issue. Rakuten is another example he named.
Obviously Linux itself isn't subject, since Microsoft can't sue Linux. Linux also can't pay patent fees. This will always be about users of Linux, and Canonical is a particularly visible and outspoken Linux user.
Not Linux the OS but the Linux Foundation. I'm no lawyer but I think that the Linux Foundation is a juridical person, i.e. an entity that can be sued.