Comments on: What's behind Microsoft's open-source deals?

General managers for interoperability at Microsoft argue that a boosted commitment to interoperability, as well as legal arrangements, are behind Microsoft deals with Linux vendors.

[MaLvaDo39]

Virus ridden

Microsoft itself is a virus.

They plan on invading the cell and multiplying from within.
Eventually they will burst the cell wall, thus destroying it.

[calpundit]

"Choice of standards"?

Considering the source, that's rich. Nobody was clamoring for
Microsoft to develop an alternative "open" document format, just as
customers weren't clamoring for an alterative to PDF or JPG.
Microsoft invented these "choices" so it could have a way to
ultimately gain control of the "standard."

Microsoft believes in "choice" right up until the time that its
products become the "standard".

[JoeSchmoe123]

The typical OSS fan

Complains that choice is limited by Microsoft, but when Microsoft offers an alternative complains that there should not be a choice. Complains that Microsoft does not innovate, but when they have something new it is not needed because the OSS version is good enough. Complains that you are forced into Windows, but when Microsoft provides an alternative (XPS), PDF is all that is needed. Complains about the smallest offence to the GPL, but then OSS communities are full of descriptions about how to work around Windows copy protections, etc.

If you are going to complain about Microsoft?s new image format, at least try to stick by the party line, otherwise you need to condemn PNG also (but you will not, you will just find some way to condemn Microsoft over it). If we were to stick to one format, why didn?t we keep troff rather than moving to TeX? Why invent MathML when Tex was good enough? Why create XHTML when HTML was good enough? You can continue ad-infinitum, but unless it is a format designed by anybody other than Microsoft, then it does not count, correct?