THE other day we saw some comments about Techrights from a bunch of Microsoft apologists (links omitted, pardon our reluctance to give those remarks further exposure as they're neither long nor insightful, only dismissive ad hominem). The message in a nutshell is, Microsoft's "embrace" of the competition (e.g. Linux Foundation) is a sign of love. This conveniently overlooks decades of strategic takeovers, derailments and abductions of competitors (or their agenda/leadership). The Bill Gates deposition is full of examples. This is just what Microsoft does and has always done. This is why, by its very own admission, Microsoft bought GitHub.
"Microsoft didn't "succeed" because its products were good but because it actively sabotaged competitors' products/companies and because Bill's mom got him the breakthrough deal with IBM."Tom called it "GitHug" when he correctly asserted it's an attack; he noted that Microsoft is willing to lose lots of money just to ensure Microsoft controls the competition.
Like bears playing with their prey, Microsoft loves entertaining that idea that those whom it is attacking are just engaging in 'foreplay'. But the 'appetiser' is the "free stuff" (like 'free' hosting, a temporary luxury as YouTube-DL developers recently found out) and the meal comes later. Microsoft does not love Linux. Microsoft didn't change itself and it didn't transform into an "Open Source company"; all the major stuff remains proprietary (Windows XP and GitHub source code leaks are treated like a major incident!) because there's nothing to it beyond shallow rhetoric.
Microsoft didn't "succeed" because its products were good but because it actively sabotaged competitors' products/companies and because Bill's mom got him the breakthrough deal with IBM. After his previous company had failed miserably and collapsed. ⬆
"Bill Gates is the absolute stone-cold worst businessman of the entire millennium. Gates tried again and again to get rid of his company, offering to merge it into Lotus Corporation, then floating away 80 percent of his ownership through share offers. The man had no concept of his own product, no faith in it, no vision of it. Gates is an accidental bazillionaire." -- Gregory Palast