opensource.com Remains Dead a Year Later and Our Assessment of opensource.net Has Aged Well, Too (Maybe Better to Focus on Software Freedom, Open-Source Became Synonymous With Proprietary Openwashing and Microsoft Bribes for the OSI Sealed the Deal/Death)
"In May of 1990, the DoJ gave the green light, freeing the FTC to open their probe. With no shortage of help from Microsoft's competitors, the FTC collected mounds of evidence showing that Microsoft and IBM had been in cahoots from the beginning."
--Barbarians Led by Bill Gates, a book composed
by the daughter of Microsoft's PR mogul
Recent: Bruce Perens (OSI co-founder): “Open Source Has Failed Its Users” (because of IBM, which also banned the other co-founder from the organisation he had created)
THE total farce that is the OSI ('opens-source' initiative) is simple enough to put in words, but they censor Wikipedia and muzzle the co-founders of OSI. They even libel their independent critics. That's what they grasp as or perceive to be "free speech" - they just mean censorship that suits them. Consider who pays the salaries.
IBM compelled them to "dispel" the idea that IBM decided to kill opensource.com (which is, actually, exactly what happened). That was part of the layoffs last April.
IBM is in OSI, including the Board and past leadership. The same is true for Microsoft. And it shows. It really shows.
So now we have opensource.net, but opensource.com is dead.
How is opensource.net doing? No better than the Microsoft-occupied (and often Microsoft-composed) opensource.org.
As we argued all along, the site would not be picked up and thus be just a shadow of the real (former) one, whose accounts remain abandoned and Web site basically locked.
SJVN, the OSI booster (same funding sources), seems to have mostly abandoned his latest blog (again), as he last published something more than 2 months ago and, prior to that, 3 months ago. That's like a pace of half a dozen posts per year.
opensource.net shows a similar trajectory.
They finally added dates to posts, but there's no space between names (of authors) and dates, so it looks like an incomplete job.
They use the site to raise money for an OSI that is essentially led to Microsoft, cheering for GPL violations and proprietary software such as GitHub (Microsoft pays the OSI to do this).
Based on the RSS feed (which they pretty much hide, and not because in social control media they have any significant footprint/following), they barely publish once a week, so it's about 10 times less active than opensource.com was.
Why would people give money to an organisation that serves Microsoft and repelled all of its founders, who openly expressed concerns about the direction the OSI has taken? █