if it was an open project the narrative would be "reaction to the suggestion was mixed; then it was adopted." Its not like Microsoft is a singular mind here; the poor slobs working there do not deserve to be tarred with all the sins of that name, and vice versa. That said, why suggest anything to Microsoft? I no longer advocate for the dissolution of the company and torment of its employees with the fervor i used to,…
1) 1980-2000 Microsoft was evil. I find 2022 Microsoft to be ahead of Google and Facebook on the ethics front, so YMMV. Microsoft doesn't do much antitrust anymore, is /more/ respectful of privacy than most of the tech industry, and by some measures, is the world's largest contributor to the open source collective. Tools like Visual Studio Code are pretty good too, and run on GNU/Linux. 2) Even with evil companies, c…
All of Microsoft's tools are full of "telemetry", which is something they've repeatedly proven to make more comprehensive and invasive as time goes on. That project is nothing but a vehicle to get those questionable practices on your machine.
> Even with evil companies, contributing doesn't always mean helping evil.
It does, because this project has their name associated with it. The better it becomes, the more impact they can have on society. For an evil company, this is more frequent and impactful opportunities to do the wrong thing.
> One can affect change from the outside or from the inside.
Large US corporations exist only to oppress and bully. There's no way to change that, from any side. It is better to operate as if they do not exist at all, where you can.