@BryanLunduke cozy-up, hire lots of rah-rah open source (not FOSS, though! oh noes) youngsters, pretend to be a huge fan, make some minor open source concessions, and market themselves as open source champions (but not FOSS). They'll work to convince people that the best platform for open source is a proprietary Windows platform. They'll be wrong, but they're ultimately a marketing company, not tech... When they get critical mass, they'll kill the open source bit of it.
@BryanLunduke but yeah (now that I've watched your segment :) ) - EEE and committee stacking - it's been MS' modus operandi all along. It's what they did with the ISO committees, W3C, and others. They're pretty transparent, it's just sad that no one else seems to recognise it.
@BryanLunduke E.E.E has always been an effective strategy, although one has to think of their ~150m investment in apple during late 90's (97?) wthere they either dropped the ball or did a back room deal and sold the shares back.
Microsoft is possibly (only possibly) less 'evil' than Google are at this point. and it wil be interesting to see IF their investment in Open Source continues with the next CEO , or if a return to the "old republic".
of course there is always BSD , Aros or Haiku
@BryanLunduke It's also sad because they have directly monetised Linux in their Azure platform. Everything they have open sourced is really for use inside Azure. You'll never see the W32 forms component of .net opened or ported to Linux, as that would enable .net desktop apps to easily move to Desktop Linux. You'll never see MS Office ported, as that would enabled droves of people to use Linux on the desktop.
Don't get me started on MS in education either, it's just as unethical!