I'm not sure if it's sarcasm or not, but there is no "new" Microsoft. Their sole aim is to use all means to crush competition; they will embrace open source when it suits them and doesn't pose any threat. When they work on Linux, they do so to make it easier for people to run Linux instances on their proprietary cloud. They were losing bad on many fronts so some changes were inevitable, but fundamentally nothing changed at all. You can see the fundamental contempt for the user with the telemetry settings in Windows 10, with pushing upgrades to everyone, with ignoring users' settings and so on. Even something as simple as dual-booting is still problematic after so many years: even with Windows 10 you have to still install Linux after Windows. If you install Linux first, Windows will happily overwrite its boot sector. As if Linux didn't exist.
1. Most of the MSFT open source stuff is either trash or completely unmaintained. Only a couple of high profile projects are maintained and they jam opt-out telemetry in if you like it or not (despite hundreds of comments requesting them to go away). Even Scott Hanselman getting involved in one of our tickets got it nowhere. Same strong arming and disregard for customers.
2. Shoehorning your tech on and blurring the lines between platforms is how you keep your tentacles growing. Who the hell wants powershell and SQL Server for Linux? We just want it to work properly on windows rather than having two problem domains.
3. MSFT's marketing and blogging machine is immense now on the level of May's "strong and stable" which is covering up for reduction in QA and enterprise support while prices are climbing and entire product lines are being burned (windows phone)
4. Fingers in ears. They don't listen to customers. The only way forward is tying you into a monthly sub for everything or forcing you to use their tools or platform.
Same turd, different coloured glitter.
Show me a business that doesn't want to win, and I'll show you a business that's not long for this world.
What are some of the companies with a moral backbone that you support? I'm genuinely interested to see what that business model looks like in the real world.
My own take on Microsoft's historical success in the 80's and 90's is that it's a combination of producing a product people wanted at a time people wanted it (and lack of well formed competition). A state of the art PC in 1991 required separately purchasing an OS, GUI, memory manager, shell, file system utilities, browser, etc.
So... while you might argue that it was anticompetitive of Microsoft to bundle these together, there's never been a huge demand for the ability to buy them separately. (Even before Microsoft started bundling all these parts together, the system vendors like Gateway, Micron, and Zeos were doing the bundling for them.)
Out of software companies that survived, Autodesk for example. Most hardware companies - except printer vendors trying to patent/restrict availability of ink cartridges etc.
Really, I think it's important to discriminate between fair and unfair business practices. Lumping everything together as "business is business" is harmful to the society especially in the long run.