-- Leo's gemini proxy
-- Connecting to gemini.techrights.org:1965...
-- Connected
-- Sending request
-- Meta line: 20 text/gemini;lang=en-GB
Gemini version available ♊︎
Posted in Antitrust, Deception, GNU/Linux, IBM, Microsoft at 3:50 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Video download link | md5sum bdfdd6fa693b45158f0e1cb63bb496efProtection Racket Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0
http://techrights.org/videos/lf-protecting-monopolies-only.webm
Summary: From a purely objective perspective, the so-called ‘Linux’ Foundation spends far more time/money protecting monopolies than it spends protecting Linux; hence, the organisation arguably does more harm than good to society
EARLIER today we said that the Linux Foundation (LF) was claiming, in vain, that it had protected women and minorities. It’s about rhetoric with almost nothing to show for it. We said that "The Linux Foundation is in No Position to Lecture Us (or Anybody) on Diversity" because it seemed like a typical corporate ploy; they paint communities as zealots and bigots, then demand control of the projects of these communities. The Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) constantly uses such issues as a "wedge". SFC played a big role in the coup against the FSF, even more than once. Someone has told us that “a reminder about the anti-RMS petition tied to the unfounded smear campaign is needed. The campaign was based on baldfaced lies which too many, out of apparent eagerness to lynch RMS or destroy FOSS, did not examine.”
> “It’s about rhetoric with almost nothing to show for it.”
The video above discusses that for a bit and then proceeds to pointing out how the LF does nothing about ‘secure-core’ or ‘secure’ boot blocking Linux (back doors’ proponents and spy agencies like the NSA misframe security). In other words, when it comes to pressing issues the LF is on the same side as Microsoft and IBM, which even tried to deprecate BIOS support. Restrictions and lockdowns like DRM and TPM are perfectly OK with the LF.
An associate of ours brought up “secure-core”, the “thicker part of the wedge, long after the thin edge.”
> “SFC played a big role in the coup against the FSF, even more than once.”
The associate said “secure-core has hardly been covered at all; remember 20+ years ago when Microsoft tried to acquire Phoenix or AMI BIOS? I forget which. That was when they laid out their strategy to also begin lock-in from the hardware on up. Not just from the OS on down. I’m missing a few steps but secure-core appears to be a certification programme where restricted boot is not just on by default but on permanently in such a way as to prevent non-Microsoft systems from booting.”
Recently, Microsoft and the OEMs stepped this agenda up a little. Where was the LF? What did it do to protect Linux from this? Absolutely nothing! Spending endless millions on vanity offices. █
Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Permalink > Image: Mail
Send this to a friend
----------
➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.
-- Response ended
-- Page fetched on Sun May 19 06:12:05 2024