In it’s most simple terms, it is because to many see Microsoft as the only solution to anything related to Desktop Software, so to make it clear I used that as a visual clue, as what Microsoft has done really has nothing to do with anything but the green in the pocket, and a group of happy investors, honestly what has Microsoft offered to the community. Before the trial of Microsoft’s Monopilistic tendencies, there was little if nothing they offered to the community, to the public at large. Removing Netscape, severing it’s community based roots, forcing people to use their browser unless they knew about the other options which commonly is well hidden from the end user. You ever try and remove a software package from Microsoft from your system, not finding it in the Add/Remove Programs, not finding it anywhere. To remove it having to enter into the depths of the registry, that in itself lead to far more confusion. The point is, that Microsoft has long been in a position where it did not matter, In fact even the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation was a result of court order to use the money that was being made in part for Philanthropy, for helping the community that was otherwise severed before.
I crossed it off because there needs to be change, to much is already written about Microsoft, to many desktops still run it as the default operating system with all it’s associated security issues, and lack of regular updates. Many are trapped in the Microsoft world the Proprietary verse, to cross them off was a clear statement to the need for the change that was preached.
Why one of the foremost tech schools would step away from an open source idea to a closed source annoyance I have no idea, except for the fact it would depend on who is lining the pockets of those who are making the decisions for the school.
A matter of funding perhaps is the only logical conclusion that can be reached from this simple article, what do you interpret?