I don't have proof. I'm presenting a theory based on circumstantial evidence. I think it says just as much to reject a theory without proof as it does to present a theory without proof. Let me break down the context in which I make put forward my theory.
* Corporate doublespeak is a well documented tactic in which a business will project a message when the truth is the opposite of the message. Sometimes they use euphemisms, ambiguity, or omissions. I am stating that we cannot take Microsoft's press releases about being Open Source friendly at face value.
* Five years ago Edge was rebuilt with a chromium backend and Microsoft had a large campaign to increase adoption of Edge.
* Reduced Firefox performance would make Edge compare more favorably. This error was clearly in Microsoft's favor.
* It is common for companies that own a platform to create advantages for their applications running on the platform.
* Microsoft has a long history in the browser wars, highlighted by an antitrust lawsuit in the late 90s. Their anticompetitive behavior regarding browsers was a key part of the lawsuit.
> I think it says just as much to reject a theory without proof as it does to present a theory without proof.
Except you don't have any proof, and the proof that opposes your wild speculation is:
- 5 years ago, a bug was opened on the FF issue tracker that over the years had a bunch of derailments.
- A month ago, someone _actually_ investigated, found an issue and reported it to Microsoft.
- Issue was promptly fixed
You're spreading FUD, and attacking _me_ for asking for proof when you made the accusation in the first place. If you want to discuss this reasonably, I'm happy to, but in order to do that, the slightest modicum of bait that points to any sort of effort is required, meanwhile to someone who has worked on software for a reasonably long time, seeing issues spin like this for years is par for the course, and it's great that someone fixed it.
* Corporate doublespeak is a well documented tactic in which a business will project a message when the truth is the opposite of the message. Sometimes they use euphemisms, ambiguity, or omissions. I am stating that we cannot take Microsoft's press releases about being Open Source friendly at face value.
* Five years ago Edge was rebuilt with a chromium backend and Microsoft had a large campaign to increase adoption of Edge.
* Reduced Firefox performance would make Edge compare more favorably. This error was clearly in Microsoft's favor.
* It is common for companies that own a platform to create advantages for their applications running on the platform.
* Microsoft has a long history in the browser wars, highlighted by an antitrust lawsuit in the late 90s. Their anticompetitive behavior regarding browsers was a key part of the lawsuit.