|
First, almost all open source software runs on Microsoft Windows. As such, it provides and curates the biggest market for open source PC software, and I'd guess that Windows generates the majority of the money earned by the developers of open source applications (ie not the OS). You can see that in action at Steam, which is fuelled by Windows users (over 90% of the user base), and from which Linux gamers (less than 1%) derive huge benefits. Second, Microsoft created a compatible x86-based PC market, which created high volume sales, which drove down prices. This is exactly the market on which and for which Linux was originally developed. The people who run free software have saved far more money through Microsoft-driven economies of scale than they would ever have paid for Windows. Third, Microsoft is a major contributor to open source, including the Linux kernel, and it has a large number of projects on both Github and Codeplex. Sure, it's self-interested, but it's no more self-interested than IBM, Google, Red Hat, and dozens of other companies that make money from software. Why do you think Microsoft is the enemy? (I'm old enough to remember when Microsoft was a spunky young bunch of freedom fighters, pioneering desktop Unix, among other things.) |
I'm old enough to remember Microsoft was always an abusive back- stabbing company, often abusing their position. Yes, Excel was the better product than 1-2-3, and Word was better than WordPerfect. That said ...
Windows 3, the killer MS app, refused to run on DR-DOS.
Their contract with SpyGlass said SpyGlass would get a share of the profits of selling IE - which MS gave for free. Though IE3 was acceptable, that was not enough to win the hearts and minds, so they kludged IE4 into the operating system, thus leveraging their OS monopoly to gain browser monopoly - which they cemented by having e.g. Word and FrontPage emit IE-specific markup.
Microsoft was continually spreading FUD, making vague threats about viral licenses, various ip issues and other problems with free software. They still make more revenue off Android patent threat agreements than they make on Windows phones.
They stacked the ISO vote for OOXML, which took a couple of years to clear in some countries (beyond the specific OOXML damage done, in some countries the new members that voted only on this issue ground work to a halt because of quorum requirements).
Not to mention all of the "protected path" issues, which are actively working against users.
While only the last three items have anything to do with free software, Microsoft is a bully, and has been one for 30 years. "Freedom fighters" is not a title I would associate with Microsoft at any point in time. They have been behaving better recently, but only because Google and Apple managed to beat them into submission. I don't think the company culture actually changed. Two years of behaving is not enough to be convincing, after ~30 years of bullying.