Ok, many people here said it, but still.

"Asked to name the most innovative tech company, they’ll say Apple or Google. And they’ll do it with a straight face, while sitting in a chair made by Microsoft.
Wait, Microsoft makes chairs? No, not directly. But the part of that chair? Manufactured in facilities running on, you guess it, Microsoft software."

Let's look at this statement. "sitting in a chair made by Microsoft". It's pretty clear what "made by Microsoft" should mean, shouldn't it? What do you think when I say "a smartphone made by nokia"? You surely think that the smartphone was manufactured in a facility that may or may not used some software from nokia, right?

So my issue with that article is very misleading language. Can I call it newspeak?

So "made by microsoft" means neither made by microsoft nor does it mean made with sotware made by microsoft. It means it was made in a facility that may or may not uses an operating system made by microsoft. Who actually made the chair is an ingenieur using software not made by microsoft but that for reasons decided to target the microsoft operating system.

And these reasons are not something anyone at microsoft should be proud about. They worked really hard at disabling their competition with unethical methods. It's not exactly secret, anyone can read about their history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107...

"Transported in trucks built by Microsoft software, on roads built by Microsoft software,"

Microsoft produces software for building trucks and roads?

"Trained at a school running Microsoft,"

Said as if it wasn't a bad thing microsoft is pushing educational institutions to use proprietary software.

"If you prefer not getting hit by a bus, think about the role that Microsoft has had in making sure your baby was born healthy."

Ok, do people really think that it's not a bad thing that (according to the article) the whole manufacturing chain is dependent on proprietary software made by one vendor? Is it not bad that fucking hospitals and their instruments "run on" proprietary closed source microsoft software? Again, this was achieved by becoming a (quasi-) monopolist by methods described in the links above.

"we’re only able to do so because of generations of Microsoft leadership in technology."

What gets me is the casual tone that (as I read it) sounds like microsoft had "generations of leadership in technology" on their own merits instead of because they disabled their competition by their business behavior.

"I run our Bing for Schools program. It gets hardware in the hands of kids, teaches them digital literacy skills, and creates a safe environment for them to practice in. And when we launched, the haters emerged from the woodwork with pitchforks and torches, growling “Google! Google!” Just for fun, see the comment stream on The Verge story: Microsoft offers classrooms free Surface RT tablets with ad-free Bing for Schools"

Again, as others have said. It's cool that children are introduced to technology. It's bad that it's proprietary technology. Especially at educational institutions. When I advocate that they get android tablets instead it's not because it's from google but because it is (mostly) free and open source. Meego/Sailfish OS/Firefox OS would be fine too. But getting taught proprietary microsoft software, possibly with their first contact to this technology? No.

"But think about the number of young people who make a face when you say Microsoft. That’s an entirely different problem."

Why is that a problem? Sounds totally healthy to me.

"Because even if you know that you are working on something that will help save lives"

Actually you don't do that. You are working on something that others will build something for that will save lives. And because you work for someone who has become a quasi monopolist with unethical behavior those others will have to give a lot of money to your employer even though without you we may or may not had a world running on free and open software by now.

"or make things better for humanity"

Again, look at the list of lawsuits microsoft was in and lost. And that's only the stuff that is actually illegal, there is a lot you can do that is not illegal but still unethical. There's everything from their faked "get the facts" studies to the plan to pressure hardware manufacturers to cripple absolute basic standard functionality just to make their competitors look worse http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/...

"I’ve pushed through a program that does good things for kids."

You mean the program that is designed to make children already dependent on microsoft software? It's called vendor lock-in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in#Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft#Vendor_l...

Tl dr;
I personally don't see how anyone that thinks stuff like "know that you are working on something that will help save lives or make things better for humanity,", i.e. who has a heart and a conscience can work for Microsoft.
I'm sure the working conditions aren't as bad as some people say and the products aren't as bad as people say either. For example the metro interface: I don't really see why microsoft thought it was a good idea, but I could certainly work with it with no problems if I wanted to. It'd be only a little bit annoying but as someone who has no problems with fluxbox/openbox, xfce4, gnome2, gnome3, kde4 etc. it'd be no big deal.

The thing is that it's not just microsoft, they "support" a whole industry intentionally or coincidentally designed to lock you in: Adobe Flash DRM, while atrocious, did work on linux. But it wasn't "good enough" or something. The media industry had to choose microsoft technology with silverlight. Result: netflix, lovefilm, ... only (officially) work on either microsoft windows or apple's mac os, both commercial proprietary operating systems.