Microsoft Astroturfing Exposed BIG TIME

There are various other possibilities.

1 - It is a Microsoft fan. You know that they are out there, even though the concept is a scary one.

2 - Perhaps a Linux fan attempting to use reverse psychology to prove how bad MS is.

3 - Maybe just a geeky smart-arse.

Any way you cut it... it is a self-exposing lie, which is a counter-productive lie: assuming the person really is pro-Microsoft (employee or not). So frankly, I don't buy it. The Microsoft folks are extremely crafty and intelligent in the marketing area. They are much more slick than this. If it is them, then I'd have to call it just a fluke instead of the norm.

There are rather clever psychological ploys they sometimes use, but I won't elaborate, since that might give ammunition to the less skilled of their professional liars.

Corriher - once one could have believed:

Quoting: ... Microsoft folks are extremely crafty and intelligent in the marketing area ...

First this is not legitimate marketing.

Second they are not quite the "intelligent" types given their performance at their antitrust trial. For all their vaunted powers some tricks bordered on mental retardation.

What don't you buy? That it redirects people to Microsoft's Get the Facts web site?

Check the poster's profile.

It doesn't matter if he's not a Microsoft employee or that Microsoft is more sophisticated. It's astroturfing.

Of course many people have a vendetta against Linux, we've seen it right here. And if one reads the number of posts on articles around the web, you see some very angry people. But, I have been called a Linux guy and worse. But, am I a Linux employee? So, I doubt that Microsoft corporate did this. I also think your three possibilities are sensible. I can think of other potential causes. More than three.

Once it hits the main page at Digg, it get's read by people who know very little about Linux.

It's not what one thinks about intent that matters, it's the fruit of action that belies true intent.

Second they are not quite the "intelligent" types given their performance at their antitrust trial.

Who won the anti-trust trial? Who REALLY won? Whose marketing has beaten better technology again and again. Gimmie a freakin break.

Corriher: Like I said, it doesn't matter what we think of them. It's the results that count. I use to say to my teams, "You can have your reasons or you can have the results." Look at the results. So, no matter how unsophisticated they are -- and I have seen some terrible presentations by Microsoft -- they get the job done.

Nappolean Hill wrote about the man who came one foot from discovering the first California gold mine. He prospected for years and then just quit. According to the story, he was like a foot from the vein.

Disraeli said that "the key to success us consistency to purpose".

The fact that Microsoft has a "Get the Facts" campaign provides me with enough evidence to have a serious concern about what they'd like to do to Linux. As I wrote previously, they want to put us in a museum like their other competitors so people will know we were here once.

I see no guarantees that Linux is immune to Microsoft's pervasive need for a competitor to rally their troops. I don't want to put them out of business but I don't want them putting us out of business. I want Linux to be a significant enough market force that hardware manufacturers give us their drivers.

Of course many people have a vendetta against Linux, we've seen it right here.

I've seen this insinuation cited again, and again, but there are no examples given. When and where? I'd find it interesting reading, I'm sure.

It's not what one thinks about intent that matters, it's the fruit of action that belies true intent.

That is self contradictory, and intent is everything. It is the difference between being a lying piece of garbage, and a person who is merely mistaken. The ends, do not justify the means. Either you are moral, or you aren't. Yes, the end result being strived for can normally be used to determine a person's intend, so while not the same, the two can never be separated. Would Microsoft astroturf in such a way to expose itself, appear to be a spammer, and then endeavor to make themselves look dishonest?

Yes... We know what Microsoft wants, and we know that to them "business is war". No disagreements about that. Yes, they're dirty. I just think we're chasing shadows this time.

Quoting:That is self contradictory, and intent is everything.

If I intend to do something and I don't do it, then I have an illusion of intent. If you want to see what someone's intent was, look at what happened. Anything else is a mind game. Fruit of action is not gray.

I have heard it said that "we can't prove intent". In the same breath law enforcement would say "but I know the SOB got exactly what they wanted."

Somewhere in the chain of events, someone was at cause in the matter of any situation.