I don't think I follow your logic. Open source software has a long history of being monetized via support. Many popular open source projects have a major financ

I don't think I follow your logic. Open source software has a long history of being monetized via support. Many popular open source projects have a major financial backer responsible for most development. At any rate, I fail to see how MS getting open source tech working smoothly on Windows will somehow > EE is the MS DNA. I don't mean to be rude, but this comment is repeated ad nauseum here on hacker news. It's not an insightful, nuanced nor fresh take. > Don't say you weren't told. Believe me. We were told. Thousands of times. You all won't let up. Just to be clear, I am also concerned about these issues but this argument just isn't convincing. It takes an ethically misguided company strategy from decades ago and extrapolates that to some vague sense of "evil" lurking inside the company. How about some _recent_ evidence? Sources? Because as far as I can tell, MS is being _forced_ to embrace and extend Linux on their OS. They've been historically reluctant to do so until the cloud made Linux impossible to ignore. I struggle to see how they could even pull off an "extinguish". The very nature of open source makes that difficult. I guess they could buy Canonical and then just fire everyone, but the damage is still just limited to Ubuntu which would be promptly forked if needed.