This page permanently redirects to gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2015/10/21/red-hat-and-black-duck/.

● 10.21.15

●● Red Hat Makes an Error by Liaising With Proprietary Software Firm and Source of FUD, Supposedly for ‘Security’

Posted in FUD, Red Hat, Security at 6:25 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Don’t feed black ducks

Yours truly feeding the ducks near home earlier this year (summer)

=>

Summary: Red Hat’s cooperation with Black Duck serves to legitimise a terrible business model, wherein fear of FOSS is being accentuated and proprietary software ‘solutions’ are being offered

YESTERDAY we became aware of Red Hat turning to Microsoft’s friend, Black Duck. It happened with little prior warning and announced with the press release calling it a “[c]ollaboration to help developers, customers and partners build and run trusted, secure applications with Red Hat container technologies” (as if these are inherently less secure than some proprietary software).

=> ↺ Black Duck | ↺ press release

What the articles fail to mention is that Black Duck’s former top manager is from Red Hat and he came back to Red Hat after his stint at this FUD firm (see the old press release titled “Black Duck Software CEO Tim Yeaton Rejoins Red Hat to Lead Newly-Formed Infrastructure Group”). Well, the doors basically revolved, twice even. Maybe that’s why Red Hat came to Black Duck, legitimising what is effectively a parasite inside the FOSS world.

=> ↺ titled “Black Duck Software CEO Tim Yeaton Rejoins Red Hat to Lead Newly-Formed Infrastructure Group”

“What the articles fail to mention is that Black Duck’s former top manager is from Red Hat and he came back to Red Hat after his stint at this FUD firm…”We have already found some puff pieces about, saying little more than the press release. One of them says that “Red Hat has collaborated with Black Duck Software to establish a secure and trusted model for containerized application delivery by providing verification that application containers are free from known vulnerabilities and include only certified content. This validation is a major step forward in enabling enterprise-ready application containers, and builds upon the strengths of each company – Red Hat’s position in container technologies and solutions, including its platform and certification strategy, and Black Duck’s position as the provider of comprehensive identification and earliest notification technologies of open source vulnerabilities.”

=> ↺ says

In its marketing, Black Duck would have us believe that FOSS is terrible at security, even though proprietary software has back doors ‘baked in’ intentionally. NSA et al don’t ‘break into’ Windows any more than Microsoft does; they’re allowed access, by design, intent, and agenda. Days ago we showed how marketers from Black Duck had claimed that it can cost $25,000 to fix a bug in FOSS.

=> ↺ back doors ‘baked in’ | we showed how marketers from Black Duck had claimed that it can cost $25,000 to fix a bug in FOSS

As of early this morning, this new relationship received press coverage from Serdar Yegulalp (writing for IDG), Sean Michael Kerner for QuinStreet and Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols for CBS. The way Vaughan-Nichols put it, “Red Hat and Black Duck want to make sure that when you run a container, it’s really the container you want to run and not a rogue package.”

=> ↺ Serdar Yegulalp (writing for IDG) | ↺ Sean Michael Kerner for QuinStreet | ↺ Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols for CBS

“In many ways, Black Duck is successful as a marketing company, much like polygraph merchants (among other popular scams like homeopathy).”It sounds good on the surface, but is a proprietary dependence healthy in the long term? Based on Vaughan-Nichols, this isn’t a short-term engagement. “In the long run,” he explains (writing from Red Hat’s town), “the companies plan to include Black Duck technologies as a component of Red Hat’s container certification.”

There are some lazy publications that ended up throwing the self-promotional promotional press release around. The Indian English-speaking press sort of rewrote the press release to make it look more original. Where are the sceptics? Where is the genuine reporting? All we see are puff pieces that relay claims made in a press release.

=> ↺ throwing the self-promotional promotional press release around | ↺ sort of rewrote the press release

In many ways, Black Duck is successful as a marketing company, much like polygraph merchants (among other popular scams like homeopathy). █

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

Permalink  Send this to a friend

=> Permalink | ↺ Send this to a friend


=> Techrights

➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.

Proxy Information
Original URL
gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2015/10/21/red-hat-and-black-duck
Status Code
Success (20)
Meta
text/gemini;lang=en-GB
Capsule Response Time
279.369238 milliseconds
Gemini-to-HTML Time
1.535335 milliseconds

This content has been proxied by September (ba2dc).