dulsi {l Wrote}:This is the problem I had with the RMS/LibrePlanet articles.They don't give details on the problem. I can't tell if it is true and no one can refute it if it isn't.
That's because the articles are basically latest updates. The details are in the wiki.
There's a LOT of data on the Techrights website. It needs organising. People are working on it.
Research doesn't do itself. If you're researching these problems, TR provides a lot of data (and references) but as with any place that has news, it doesn't always name its sources. When you get it from another article, sources are common-- when the news reports something that wasn't public before, it doesn't always say who told them.
Techrights does both. And many of the sources are on the wiki. Many are in the links in the articles.
I can appreciate if you find it inconvenient, it is probably not the sort of website you're looking for. But that doesn't mean it is poorly researched. As I said already, the primary author is a medical researcher with an actual doctorate using his real name. That alone doesn't prove anything, but with the other information at hand, it ought to be something at least.
In the case of corporations (or even people), they can be both good and bad at the same time.
So what? Techrights doesn't say otherwise. I've watched Microsoft for years and years, mostly from other places than TR, and TR is not just a muckraking website. Microsoft is just a very dirty corporation (just got fined several million for bribing Hungarian officials. That's all over the press, you can check out WaPo if like, it's there as well.)
TR has information about new distros, programming tips, insider news (as in, probably only interesting if you're a developer) and it does try to organise the deluge of information.
But it's heavily cross referenced and sometimes it's probably better for research.
One more time, my decision to treat it as trustworthy (not infallible, nothing is) came form dealing directly with Dr. Schestowitz and also finding out which other respectable people find value in TR.
They can support open source and advocate for software patents or whatever. I'm not saying Microsoft is a friend to Linux or open source. I think they have reluctantly come to accept that Linux is here to stay.
They're doing to GNU/Linux exactly what they did to Sun Microsystems, and I could probably find you 20-50 different (non-Techrights) links regarding this. On the wiki, there are exactly 130 pages (I counted) containing the string "Microsoft" in the title.
Unless the accusations against RMS have to do with Nazis or the Holocaust, why are you bringing in IBM's past? I suppose if they are a big sponsor of LibrePlanet but that seems like a stretch. Various companies and governments have done bad things in the past.
The rhetorical point there is that:
1. Red Hat has a code of conduct
2. People (including from Red Hat) have complained about RMS and his compliance with the LibrePlanet code of conduct
3. The claims about RMS are exaggerated, dishonest and likely political (the political aspect is from insider tips, no publicly available source for that yet)
4. Red Hat is owned by a company that (unlike other collaborators) haven't even apologised for helping exterminate millions of people, but people from Red Hat want to stifle RMS on the site of his own organisations events.
That's a bit over-the-top ridiculous in terms of double standards. Maybe first they should ask their OWN company to apologise for participating in mass murder and war crimes before bothering RMS about manners, is the point.
Has the USA ever apologized for Von Braun not being locked up?
A very relevant question, when USA government officials are talking to other countries about manners and tact, but not as much here in this thread.
At the end of the article, he includes a link to an article about Bill Gates employing someone arrested for pedophilia. What does that have to do with Linus adopting a Code of Conduct for the Linux kernel?
This is a silly question if you know how the links at the bottom are created.
If you have a blog on wordpress.com (TR is self-hosted, albeit on a local wordpress installation) then wordpress.com will show "related stories" at the bottom.
It's an algorithm that shows such links, whether you're using Google search or Netflix or wordpress.com or Techrights. So if you're asking why does an algorithm consider other pages thematically related, you can either obtain the sourcecode or chalk it up to machine learning.
The direct answer is "Perhaps nothing!" perhaps something. That's "related stories" features for you.
For that matter what does that have to do with Bill Gates?
Hopefully the answer to this question is already obvious by now.
There is no suggestion that Bill Gates knew or is protecting the guy. The link should not have been added to that article.
Please let me know if you're still quibbling about this after reading the explanation. But to be honest, you might as well complain that the Google article on Wikipedia links to Facebook in the first paragraph:
Google LLC[5] is an American multinational technology company that specializes in Internet-related services and products, which include online advertising technologies, search engine, cloud computing, software, and hardware. It is considered one of the Big Four technology companies, alongside Amazon, Apple and Facebook.
In my opinion the fact that an employee of Bill Gates is a criminal shouldn't even been an article unless it is about that guy as it doesn't tell you anything about Bill Gates.
I happen to think your opinion is possibly based on expectations that are neither realistic nor really in line with the sort of standards you find governing websites these days.
This is the tech world-- I realise that a lot of it is very corporate now, that's not a feature it's a bug, but websites like the FSF and OSI when Eric Raymond was in charge weren't afraid to play fast and loose with links and news.
Perhaps you should just stick to the MSM? I could point out the problems with doing so, but if that's all you really want then who am I to tell you not to?