[latch]

Your parent's point is that the reason Microsoft doesn't do this as much now isn't because they are more benevolent, it's because they were so over the top tyrannical that they've been forced to stop.

[redthrowaway]

Not really. Microsoft really is far less evil under Ballmer than Gates. It's also less effective, less farsighted, and slower, but it is less evil.

[0x12]

I think it is just as evil, just less successful at implementing the evil because Ballmer isn't half as smart as Gates was.

Even evil suffers from poor execution.

[redthrowaway]

I dunno. They've (more or less) embraced web standards, made overtures to the OSS community with a bunch of commits to the linux kernel, and have generally been a whole lot less monopolistic. Granted, Ballmer may want to be Gates and lack the ability, but the end result is a far less scary beast.

[ZeroGravitas]

The commits to the kernel were to make it run in their VM, even if you consider that a good thing (I'd say it's neither good nor bad) the patents they're claiming to hold on Linux, and the patronising language they use in connection with that, about people making use of their innovation is as evil as anything they used to get up to.

[latch]

     generally been a whole lot less monopolistic

What makes you say this is a result of Ballmer vs being told by the government to be less monopolistic?

[pm]

It's just more incompetent. That's what happens when evil genius moves aside, and the henchmen take over.