I agree with you that assuming that they are "paid off" is illogical and damaging to the common discourse - but it does happen at times. I was interviewed on t

I agree with you that assuming that they are "paid off" is illogical and damaging to the common discourse - but it does happen at times. I was interviewed on this topic specifically and quoted in an article. It made me somewhat nervous, because the author wanted to source the quote with my full name, title, and employer - understandable, but my feelings on the issue were somewhat nuanced. As a result I had to place more than a little trust in the journalist writing the piece. We spoke for quite a while and I'm 100% certain that she could have quoted me out of context to make it sound like I held whatever viewpoint she thought sounded most controversial. She represented my statements accurately and clearly, and I'm glad I worked with her. Here's the article: https://www.ciodive.com/news/deal-of-the-year-microsofts-github-acquisition/539629/ https://www.ciodive.com/news/deal-of-the-year-microsofts-git... I referenced MS's history of "embrace, extend, extinguish" several times and basically said that while it appears that they've turned a new leaf and are not the same leviathan they once were, their reputation for hostility toward F/OSS was not built overnight and they will not lose it overnight. I'm more than happy to give credit where credit is due - Microsoft is doing great things right now for F/OSS. They've built much of the Azure platform around it, and continue to promote the use of F/OSS alongside or even in preference to their own offerings. If this continues, they could be the next Red Hat... but if it doesn't, and a few years from now we look back and find that they were still the "devil we knew", then they have the potential to cause a lot of damage. I don't think it's at all unfair to be cognizant of that fact and to be hesitant to trust them fully.