Oh stop it. Microsoft has made/done plenty of positive things, you're just blind to them because you have somewhere between a mild dislike and a hatred for the company. Open your eyes and see.
Sophisticated enough to understand the utility of Github, but too stupid to understand their own biases? The idea that someone is faulty in their understanding is an uncharitable take. The benefit of (MSFT's) history, is you can learn from it, or ignore it and claim that those who have are being irrationally ornery.
> Oh stop it.
Microsoft is one of many indifferent profit-seeking tyrants. I will never stop pointing out how positive characterizations are, at best, misinterpreting their intent. I'm much more likely to believe any feature is a stepping stone that MSFT plans to leverage later to extort its own users. This plan may or may not come to fruition, which is incidental.
As opposed to all of the other companies that aren’t seeking profits?
One of many is right in the quote.
The obvious difference is how the power in an industry has been wielded. Railroad barons were the closest historical equivalent, imo.
Again, this is about historic context. They wielded power widely enough (monopolistic practices, predatory acquisitions, etc) that they earned the distrust. Every move, however magnanimous is carefully weighed as to how it can be monetize at a maxim (now, without drawing Govt scrutiny).
Yes. Personal attacks are unwarranted here.
> the post you're defending is worse?
I'm not sure what you mean by "worse" here.
> Anyone who has known Microsoft from back in the day knows attributing anything positive to them is likely an error
I agree with this fully.
Neither is hyperbole.
> Neither is hyperbole.
So we agree? Personal attack and unwarranted are a correct characterization. That's nice to hear.