However regarding MS specifically; I don't know your age but a lot of us were around when Microsoft was a different company then it is today. The Microsoft of the Halloween documents ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents ), the Microsoft that killed Netscape with very anticompetitive practices, the Microsoft that had to pay Sun billions for its anticompetitive behaviour, the Microsoft that called opensource a cancer, etc. etc. You know what they say: Trust arrives walking and leaves riding...

But, spending a little cash to have a LF sponsorship to point to, and talking up open source and switching development of some peripheral products to that model now that they've figured out how it can be good for them doesn't really mean much.

We've had 30 years of the old Microsoft, where free software was cancer, a joke, and Microsoft used all its corporate power to try to strangle Linux (especially) as a possible competitor.

You'll notice that today, Windows, Exchange, Office, Azure, etc, etc, -- all the products that they make money from are still totally, or almost totally, proprietary. There's clearly been a recognition that open source is not going away, and even has some value, but they haven't actually changed to being a genuine open source company.

GitHub was always a risk: one day it was going to be acquired (pre- or post-IPO). Clearly others (eg. Oracle) would be worse than Microsoft, but I think some level of concern (especially given the Skype debacle) is warranted.

Because of more than two decades of trampling on open source and competitors. Remember when Microsoft called Linux a cancer? No? Then read up on their history.

Maybe you should have another look... Microsoft isn't the same company it was 12 years ago.

Everybody keeps repeating that little mantra " Microsoft isn't the same company it was 12 years ago."

I would say they should all (re)-read this classic bit of wisdom:

One day a frog was sitting happily by the side of the river when a scorpion came along. “Oh Mr. Frog,” said the scorpion, “I need to get to the other side of the river to be with my family. Will you please carry me across?”

“But Mr. Scorpion, if I do that, then you will sting me!” replied the frog, somewhat aghast at the request.

“No, I won’t,” said the scorpion, " if I were to sting you, surely I would drown as well."

Okay,” the frog said reluctantly. “Hop on.”

The scorpion climbed on top of the frog’s back and they set off. Halfway across the river, the scorpion stung the frog. In horror, the frog, unable to continue swimming and with both of them about to drown, finally managed to gasp, “Please, Mr. Scorpion, just tell me one thing before we both go under. Just tell me why, when you promised you would not, why oh why did you sting me?”

“Because it is my nature,” replied the scorpion.

Becoming a platinum sponsor or opening source of a few tools is merely throwing money at a problem of public image. It's the easy thing to do if one has the necessary resources.

> Microsoft isn't the same company it was 12 years ago.

It may be not the same company (though I have strong doubts; I think its hands were merely forced, so I don't see it as a genuine change), but it's not clear that it's better than the old one.

Don't get me wrong, I'll be thrilled if it turns out that their newfound commitment to open source is driven solely by an interest in creating better software. But there are few solid reasons to believe that that's the case: the PR around open source is, well, PR, and Microsoft's anticompetitive practices were around long before Ballmer took over.

I'm probably over-extrapolating a bit, but my point is that there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of claims that Microsoft is being altruistic.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extingu...

Microsoft was quite dominant for quite some time.

These days they’re a little disappointing. I don’t want the old Microsoft but they certainly need to be a little more aggressive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_disputes

There was always FreeBSD. And NetBSD. And OpenBSD.

Follow a company long enough and they'll break your heart.

Also, we old geeks really know how to hold a grudge, especially if it involves a protocol or standard.

Microsoft acquired another non-open-source company two years ago — Xamarin — and dropped the price to use it to zero immediately and then open sourced the stack as soon as the lawyers gave them the all-clear. The co-founder of Xamarin, Miguel de Icaza, is no idiot and certainly not a sell-out. If he’s convinced this is a new Microsoft you can trust, what’s your objection?

I wouldn't say I hate Microsoft, but I wouldn't be surprised if they changed github into something I wouldn't want to use anymore.

As someone preferring to self-host wherever possible, I don't have strong feelings about this.

Because a leopard never changes its spots, a zebra doesn't change its stripes, and the scorpion always stings the frog in the end.

Or to put it another way: because they earned it.