New York Times sees European Court ruling in the Microsoft antitrust case as a healthy step in the growth of the information economy

We take a good look at the New York Times' lip and app service to Microsoft.

Microsoft's GNU/Linux-hostile vision of the Web is not catching on

MICROSOFT'S "academic kickbacks" are no news to us. Microsoft pays hundreds of dollars to professors who secretly promote its products (and bullies those who don't). Microsoft was doing almost exactly the same thing to throw fire at the GNU GPL version 3. The company from Redmond routinely pays academia to promote its agenda and here is the very latest example which comes from the New York Times.

"Another one bites the dust. The New York Times has announced that it will no longer participate in Facebook's unethical privacy-invading beacon program..."

he New York Times likes open source -- so much so that, as it gradually moves more of its print operations online, it is nurturing a Web development team that has released two of its own open source projects.

The New York Times ran a story today about Ubuntu and its prospects for beating Microsoft. Focusing on Mark Shuttleworth, the South African billionaire who founded the Ubuntu project and leads Canonical, the Times reporter concludes that the idea of Linux on every desktop remains a bit “quixotic,” and suggests that Ubuntu has only come so far thanks to Shuttleworth’s wealth.

The New York Times seems hard-wired to rarely identify any Windows malware as Windows malware, but only "computer malware." They seem to share this illness with other people too, such as researchers and professors.

Remember Brett Winterford? The guy whom Microsoft gave a free journey to Redmond (he lives far away in Australia)? The guy who writes for the already-Microsoft-biased ZDNet and soon after his visit to Redmond unleashed some outrageous articles echoing Microsoft’s accusations against IBM and ODF?