I only see this causing issues.

1) Windows Admins writing power shell scripts to do stuff on linux boxes
      a) setting permissions to 777 because they got in the way.
      b) why will it not write the file to c:\?
      c) A power shell script developed and tested on Windows, then pushed out to all the servers and crashing the Linux boxes.
      c) Do you really believe that a Linux admin would allow a windows Admin to run a Power Shell script as root?
2) Linux Admins being asked to manage windows servers because "You know Power Shell" (If they can get the Linux admin to manage the 300 windows servers on top of the existing 500 Linux servers he manages, it saves them headcount and $$$)

Personally I see it going the way all the other Microsoft products have gone when they release a Linux version. It gets adopted by a few windows admins that are forced to work on linux. However the Linux admins and the bulk of Linux systems will never see it or use it. It will eventually get dropped because of the bugs, memory leaks, and issues that are found in it. Those that are never fixed because they concentrate on the Windows version and ignore the Linux version.

Judging from history it is another Embrace, Extend, Extinguish attempt. Microsoft is just pulling from it's old bag of tricks.

Right, it is not like the BBC geo-blocks. I am sure everyone in the US can get to the BBC streams without issue.

Not just US companies doing it.

I don't know that anymore.

The Macintosh I had no lid.

No Lace Cards? I had Apple IIe's to work with, loads of fun to be had there.

So a free market is bad when everybody is able to invest, but is good when a chosen few are able to invest?

Now I feel left out, the Commodore PET's we had in school did not have mice, or hard drives, or usb. Just a keyboard and a 5.25" floppy drive. :(

True enough- IF you can prove it was a murder and not an accident.
 
Can you prove intent with global climate change? If you ignore the utterly non-scientific process of "scientific consensus", do you even have enough data left to prove the murder weapon?
 
And in the long run, does it matter? We're still left with the decision to either adapt or die; we're far too late for any mitigation attempt to work. Blame the culprit is a waste of time in this case.

In what way is insuring a fair and free market collectivism?

Species that are unable to adapt have been going extinct without mankind's help for 9/10ths of the planet's history. For the remaining 1/10th, we've been a major motivator of evolution, that's true- Dodos and wooly mammoths and the like. But we are also to the point with GMO research that we can be a major cause of increased adaptation- we can speed up evolution, and likely will, because beef is tasty (among many other species that are directly useful to us, such as bees). Speaking of that last, just saw a report on OPB about a pair of beekeepers with a unique solution to colony collapse disorder- they're breeding stronger queen bees that can live through Oregon winters.

If mankind wants to survive, food needs to be our top priority. Luckily, as I mentioned someplace above I think, food production is also an answer to excess atmospheric carbon. Especially if we keep locking our own carbon up in airtight containers buried in concrete when we die.