Can we trust Microsoft with Open Source? (2021)

Overall sentiment on “trusting” Microsoft

• Many commenters answer “no,” citing Microsoft’s profit motive, history of lock‑in, and 1990s anticompetitive behavior as incompatible with the values of open source.
• Others argue that no large, profit‑driven company can be “trusted” with open source; safeguards should come from licenses, decentralization, and community power, not corporate goodwill.
• Some note that attitudes have shifted somewhat: Microsoft now contributes heavily to Linux and other OSS, largely to support Azure and cloud revenue.

Windows ecosystem, lock‑in, and user experience

• Several personal anecdotes describe frustration with Windows 10/11: forced updates, reinstallation of Edge/OneDrive, aggressive defaults tying everything to Microsoft accounts, telemetry, ads, and difficulty keeping chosen defaults.
• WSL is seen by some as a strategic way to prevent migration to desktop Linux; by others as a pragmatic, lower‑friction way to get Linux tooling without Linux’s perceived desktop brittleness.
• Features like Secure Boot, Pluton, and ARM exclusivity deals are portrayed by critics as control and lock‑in mechanisms.

Open source, licensing, and forking

• One camp stresses that with open source “you can just fork,” so trust is less critical.
• Others counter that this is limited when a company is the primary developer, or when projects depend on closed components (e.g., DirectX), or are too large for communities to realistically maintain.
• Debate over GPL vs permissive licenses:
  • Pro‑GPL voices say it prevents proprietary forks that out‑resource the community and ensures the freedom to fork viable alternatives (e.g., database forks).
  • Others note that no license can force a company to keep investing; they can always just walk away.

Comparisons to other corporations

• Some argue Microsoft is no worse than Google, Apple, Amazon, or IBM/Red Hat; all are seen as profit‑maximizing and willing to “enshittify” products.
• Others distinguish them: Google’s and Apple’s business models historically made FOSS less existential, while Microsoft’s core desktop and Office franchises put it in direct tension with free software.

Infrastructure and tooling

• GitHub and npm are cited as valuable, reliably operated infrastructure that make OSS development easier, though there is anxiety about future degradation.
• There is criticism of Microsoft’s declining documentation quality and examples of technical missteps, but also recognition that their funding employs many OSS contributors.