Can we trust Microsoft with Open Source? (2021)
Skepticism over Microsoft’s intentions toward open source dominates this exchange, with many pointing to the company’s history of anti-competitive behavior, aggressive Windows/Office integration, and product shutdowns as evidence that profit will always trump community values. Others note that Microsoft is now a major contributor to Linux and popular tools like GitHub and VS Code, arguing its incentives have shifted toward cloud services and developer goodwill. The broader theme is that no large, profit-driven company — whether Microsoft, Google, Apple, or Red Hat — can be fully “trusted” with open source, so communities must rely on strong licenses, the ability to fork, and avoiding single points of corporate control.
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.