> Maybe I'm failing to fully understand the article
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
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.