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.