It is all about monopoly and control (coercive relationship), not sharing

Notice how he (Scott Guthrie, Microsoft's Clown Chief) openly acknowledges that it's correct to view Microsoft as the "antichrist"

Summary: Microsoft's strategy of hijacking the Free software movement wasn't a reflex and didn't come about overnight; the people behind it and their thinking (as shared openly for the media to publish) reveal the true motivation, the real agenda

THIS morning I spent several long hours studying the roots of the GitHub acquisition (the research is based on old articles, photographs and background readings), reaffirming to myself what I mostly knew already. This subject isn't new to me. I spent years reading about it already and I wrote about it many times in the past. Herein we present the gist of the story. I believe this to be as accurate as possible, no spin or marketing or embellishments (like Microsoft's claims that it "loves Linux"; it's hard to buy or take over something that you shamelessly call "cancer").

The takeover of GitHub was planned 6 years ago and happened almost exactly 2 years ago. The person who came up with this idea/strategy confessed openly: "We would have screwed it up, and developers – many of whom viewed Microsoft as public enemy No. 1 for its attacks on freely distributed open-source software – would have rioted.” (we made a screenshot above because this confession is important)

"The takeover of GitHub was planned 6 years ago and happened almost exactly 2 years ago."That was 6 years ago. This was covered in various publications. Microsoft was aware things would backfire badly.

When Microsoft announced the anti-competitive (a likely antitrust issue) move to hijack GitHub, i.e. takeover of its biggest competition, it worked overtime and super-hard to dominate the media narrative with falsehoods and lies. We've produced some evidence of this before. And thinking back, how many publishers pushed back against it? Almost none. Microsoft got the media all set up for puff pieces (in advance). Who needs truth anyway......

"People who are still in denial about GitHub being an attack on Free software probably still believe crap like “Microsoft loves Linux” (which started a year after Microsoft planned to buy GitHub but knew Free software developers would flee, so it needed years to lie)."Here’s Microsoft's media mole Dina Bass (at Techrights we published leaks about her secret collaborations with Microsoft) pushing lies into the media, pretending Microsoft is welcomed as it attacks Free software projects for reinforcement of Microsoft's monopoly. And one year later she still whitewashed the whole thing and the media reprinted the story widely (as we noted at the time; this Journal Gazette copy is one of very many, several dozens if not a hundred).

"In 2014," it says, "Microsoft cloud chief Scott Guthrie wrote up a proposal to acquire GitHub. Then he filed the plan away in a drawer."

People who are still in denial about GitHub being an attack on Free software probably still believe crap like “Microsoft loves Linux” (which started a year after Microsoft planned to buy GitHub but knew Free software developers would flee, so it needed years to lie). And then, not too long after paying undisclosed sums of money for Xamarin (whose CEO was the sidekick of Miguel de Icaza) Microsoft put in charge of GitHub its longtime mole and former Microsoft intern, whom it also used to promote .NET with/via Mono, the patent/lock-in/monopolistic trap. This young man may seem harmless, but Microsoft has used him to attack the Free software community for nearly two decades. The media isn't covering any of these aspects and later the publishers which rapidly perish wonder why people distrust so much of the media (where paying advertisers set the agenda/tone).

So they lied to us for four years. They had reasons to. The lies were strategic.

"So they lied to us for four years. They had reasons to. The lies were strategic."It is worth noting that the same year Tom Preston-Werner (co-founder) stepped down as GitHub's chief over an harassment claim, which he denies, Microsoft made plans to buy GitHub for monopoly/control over its opposition, according to Bloomberg. A year later they started that “Microsoft Loves Linux” PR blitz (lie), which went all the way up to the newly-appointed and Bill Gates-advised CEO.

This co-founder of GitHub had worked for a company later sold to Microsoft (Powerset) and, according to Wikipedia, “[f]ollowing his resignation from GitHub, Preston-Werner sold his shares in the company to Microsoft” (making him a billionaire).

"A year later they started that “Microsoft Loves Linux” PR blitz (lie), which went all the way up to the newly-appointed and Bill Gates-advised CEO."While researching the ‘backstory’ (so to speak) about the takeover, which Microsoft already planned in 2014, we also stumbled upon this article which reminds us that the Linux Foundation was actively helping Microsoft. While regulators assessed the proposed buyout Mr. Zemlin told lies that Microsoft managers eagerly recorded. Also remember the Guthrie/Microsoft/GitHub/Zemlin photo ops, predating the takeover by less than two years (same time the "Microsoft loves Linux" nonsense was put up in a presentation by Guthrie... at a Linux event). We've reproduced these photo ops and slides many times here (photos do tell a story sometimes). Regular readers will know what we're alluding to... ⬆

"It could be argued that Microsoft’s unethical Technology Evangelism (TE) practices are “old news”—i.e., that Microsoft stopped using these questionable TE practices long ago. This is very unlikely to be the case, for at least three reasons."

--James Plamondon, Microsoft's former chief Technology Evangelist (TE)