Err, saying that a site has a proprietary flavor just because it's hosted on Windows, is like saying this open standard is proprietary since the documentation was authored in MS Word.
>is like saying this open standard is proprietary since the documentation was authored in MS Word.
And yes, that gives off the same vibe. It's a vibe that says, "we're not really into open source". I say that in spite of Microsoft's recent -- and welcome -- forays into open source. Their technology is still used primarily among people and organizations who are not very welcoming to open source technology.
Even though I'm a web developer who _loves_ open source on the server side and has pushed for as many open source technologies as possible in my daily work as a web developer, I much prefer the experience of MS's office suite to many of the open source alternatives.
And that doesn't undermine any of the work I do as a programmer. My job is to pick the superior option and weigh pros and cons for a given set of circumstances, whether it's open source or closed source.
I'm happy being a user and advocate of open source technologies without having to be an absolutist who won't use anything else.
Indeed, it's like a recruiter asking me to email them my resume in Word format ... for a role working with an almost entirely Free Software stack. Clueless on so many levels, and a great big warning sign.
