I mean "refused to". There was absolutely no value to Microsoft in refusing to restore the deleted information, and there was no practical reason to have deleted it at all. Ultimately, it just amounts to contempt.
"I screwed up. By the way, it's your fault. I hope you realize how many people think more highly of your service because my project is there. Why wont you accept some money for a service you don't provide?"
What's the value in capitulating to that? Also, a user saying "delete this stuff" is a pretty practical reason to do so.
or maybe just incompetence? or just retro-1990s microsoft? what is this? slashdot in 1998?
i mean, this is the company that perfected the "throw it all away and start over" serviceability paradigm and the "we don't know what's wrong with it just reboot it every six hours" reliability paradigm for systems.
totally reliable business partner to trust for outsourcing critical business and government infrastructure for sure!
those who are serious and prudent seek assurance, for the reckless and feckless, there's azurance.
if the blog post doesn't work, i'd suggest renaming the project (specifically the cli) such that it makes reference to the hollowness of the new microsoft's apparent love for open source. that way when those thousands of developers (who happen the be of the exact variety that the dinosaur is trying to court) are invoking it every day, it can burn into their skulls to never ever work for, or choose technologies made by, microsoft.
