I care about how much they respect freedom instead of how many lines of public code they shared. Technology can be bought or bruteforced, freedom can not.

What are you basing this off? This article?[0] If so, then it only supports my shared belief with roadbeats that Microsoft out of most of those companies has had little impact on my life as an open source user.

[0]: https://medium.freecodecamp.org/the-top-contributors-to-gith...

They are the biggest software company, so when they decided they want to embrace and extend open source, it's not surprising the quantity of released code is higher than of smaller companies. The argument here is different: we don't really believe MS changed much from the time they called Linux and GPL "cancer" and used all possible means, some of them quite grey, to completely annihilate all significant competition.

Imagine there are two cities in a country, city A and city B. The president lives in city A and is very popular there, but not so much in city B.

Person from city B: I hate the president. He never did anything good for our people.

Person from city A: On the contrary, this is the best president we had in forever. In fact he built 5 hospitals and 10 schools in our city alone! How can you possibly hate him?

Like, maybe Microsoft has contributed to some open source projects, but are these open source projects something everyone benefits from? I'm not even sure what their open source projects are.

Also, isn't it a big conflict of interest then? When the largest user of a platform also owns this platform, it kind of puts other projects at a huge disadvantage.

Microsoft is probably one of the largest contributors to Linux itself.