I don't know, I think some people feel a bit threatened by this move. It could be viewed as a way to subvert the Linux and OSS community. I think people should know there are alternatives.
There is a bit of a contrarian culture here, lately. Some skepticism is healthy, but too much is toxic.
As a general optimist and hopeful, I like to try and find good where I can without being suckered by hocus or sly marketing.
Moving forward and growing outward should be a good thing, shouldn't it?
This is basically asking Microsoft to open source Windows.
> Will we ever see office for linux?
They already have Office for macOS, Android, and iOS. They also have SQL Server for Linux and .Net core. "Linux" isn't really a viable desktop operating system compared to the other operating systems mentioned.
> Why can't we get a proper POSIX layer for windows (like they used to offer)?
POSIX is dead. Linux compatibility is far more relevant to modern computing.
> "Linux" isn't really a viable desktop operating system compared to the other operating systems mentioned.
Well maybe if office and other applications were available it would be? That's the point.
> POSIX is dead. Linux compatibility is far more relevant to modern computing.
Uh, what about all those people running MacOS? homebrew etc are about running all that nice OSS on MacOS. Pretty much all that stuff will run on BSD/MacOS/Linux/*Nix due to POSIX compatibility.
Where are all the non-Microsoft applications for Linux? Where is Photoshop? What about the thousands of other software vendors?
> Uh, what about all those people running MacOS? homebrew etc are about running all that nice OSS on MacOS.
Getting Linux software ported to MacOS is and has been non-trivial. A lot of effort went into that and for the longest time Homebrew lagged behind. If you're on MacOS you're lucky it's a popular platform and people put in the effort.
I'm not really sure what you're arguing for here anyway -- why should Microsoft their own flavor of POSIX compatible UNIX (again) over building something compatible directly with the Linux kernel. What advantage is the former?
Citation needed.
And please don't quote that 5 years old statistic of a one time contribution.
I believe personally that there are great people working at MS (because I know one or two... so I'll just take a leap and assume in general) --
so it seems like a problem of reining in the beast.
Hell, Gates seems like a generally good person. It's the default nature of a corporation [read: monster] so large to consume as much as it can and become as powerful as it can. Such organizations are structured this way, and bend this way regardless, because of the framework they operate within. I hardly need to say this. MS started making some good ground recently, so maybe with further prodding and pressure, who knows. Everything you suggested sounds like easy wins for them. It's not like it would affect their core consumer base too much.
Ballmer on the other hand - both an idiot who stopped Microsoft doing much good for ten years, supported a stupid HR manager in her talent-scaring practices, and also helped give MS its bad reputation. Good job mate.
Corporations, any for-profit corporation, are all by their nature (if you can call it that) for the express purpose of making money in their raw functioning. It would take a purposeful, active measure to sway the actions a corporate body would take (or should take).
Not saying MS is an innocent party in the slightest.
You are right, but as you said, is good to have alternatives.
> It could be viewed as a way to subvert the Linux and OSS community.
Good, is healthy to have competition.