Re: The "John Doe" vote.
Mmm, except you need to be logged in to vote, and the forum software records that you have voted for a post. About the only thing that isn't recorded is which way you voted, only the totals of up and down votes. So no, there's no such thing as voting as an "anonymous coward".
I'll admit to having an open-source bias for exactly the reason Trever puts it: Microsoft's attitude sucks harder than a vacuum digger. I try to be balanced in my criticisms. I lean towards the open-source side of the fence because I find where there is a technical limitation, I'm more able to fix it, given sufficient time to understand its code.
Any software not burned into a permanently-mounted ROM can be fixed. Software for which you have the sources is monumentally easier to fix than software you just have binaries for, this does not mean people don't try it. They do, but it isn't economic. I personally would rather spend my time fixing something that I have the sources for, than to try and pick apart some binary black box.
This is where I find myself avoiding Microsoft solutions — if my use case doesn't fit into their sometimes quite rigid design criteria, I'm stuffed. Their API seems to put to me an "us or them" proposition: Are you with us building Windows software, or are you with "them" POSIX-compliant platforms? So as a software developer, if I want to maximise my user base, I've got to weigh up using the subset of features available on both systems, versus locking out users from either of these two camps. The digital divide between Microsoft and the rest of the IT world couldn't be more vast, and my, the likes of Interix and Cygwin has all the security of a rope bridge strung across the Grand Canyon.
The lack of common ground between systems is just one area where Microsoft shows its arrogance. Look at Office OpenXML. Did they incorporate existing standards like SVG or CSS? No, they went the NIH route and invented new "standards", and gave attributes ambiguous names like "autoSpaceLikeWord95".
And then there's the licensing. In a BYOD world, why does Microsoft insist on making a standard Workstation version of Windows, and a hobbled consumer version? Why spend the extra time stripping the latter of functionality, only to upset users, have network admins tear their hair out and burden themselves with having to support yet another version of an OS? We might have kept our only Windows 8 installation at work, if it had a domain logon client, then the sales stats might actually mean something!
What difference does it make if I have 1 remote desktop user, or 10 if the hardware can support it? Or 5 SQL clients making queries, versus 50? Some limitations are put on software for technical issues, but a lot are just purely artificial. 4GB limit on a database you say? If I pay for a license, does that suddenly make file position pointers grow an extra 32-bits or were they 64-bit to begin with and just ANDed with 0x00000000ffffffff?
This, is exactly the sort of arrogance that gets right up my nose. I don't like it in open-source projects either, but there I'm at least empowered to fix these limitations, we're not stuck with the "my way or the high way". Don't like where they put (or didn't put) the launch button? Keep your apps and just move to a different desktop. KDE and Gnome apps work just fine on other window managers, I use FVWM myself. Try that on MacOS X or Windows: on Windows yes you can replace the shell, but there's only so much it can "fix".
Want a heavily cut down OS to do one task and one task only? You've got it. Learn the art of debootstrap, catalyst or BitBake and you're away. The competition at the minimum forces on you a standard desktop and a web browser, even if your application will run kiosk-mode or headless and never use it. Desktops furthermore get abused as a place to run "servers". (yes, Rekon Accounts, CET PecStar, I'm looking at you! This is how you write a server for Windows. You don't see Microsoft Exchange or IIS running on the desktop!) Good news that Server 2012 makes the desktop optional.
Anyway, I think I've laboured the point long enough. No community is immune from a certain level of arrogance. Microsoft and open-source projects are no exception. I think this arrogance is a bigger factor in people downvoting pro-Microsoft or anti-Linux posts. There are places where brickbats are deserved on both sides, and I'll deliver bouquet's where I think they're deserved too.