It actually kind of directly links to Microsoft's strategy, because Atom was the original Electron editor, and Atom was created by GitHub, who was purchased by Microsoft, after which Atom was ~extinguised~ deprecated.
> "after which Atom was ~extinguised~ deprecated."
That isn't what 'extinguished' meant! It was supposed to be that you and Oracle exchanged email by open SMTP, Microsoft wedged some new features into Exchange SMTP which then enough Microsoft customers relied on that Oracle rolled over to MS-SMTP, and then you practically couldn't use plain standard SMTP because everyone you wanted to email was using proprietary Microsoft SMTP.
To trivialise that by turning it into "Microsoft stopped developing a thing and I can't be bothered to fork it and develop it myself" is, well, to turn a potentially real issue (from twenty five years ago, which never happened) into empty whining.
I guess as an end-user, I fail to see the difference. And it wasn't like Microsoft started developing Atom and then stopped it, they bought the company that started developing it, and shut it down in favor of their own product. And blaming it on the end-user because they fail to pick up a massive product like Atom and develop it themselves seems disingenuous at best.
One difference is that you can continue using your old Atom install, and if it had been "extinguished", you couldn't[1]. The other difference is that EEE was largely about interoperable protocols, not what one person could do with one program - it was about TCP/IP and SMTP and HTML and trying to take those over to Microsoft's benefit[2].
> "And blaming it on the end-user because they fail to pick up a massive product like Atom and develop it themselves seems disingenuous at best.
Yes, welcome to the elephant in the room of Open Source, 'many eyes makes bugs shallow', and the other pretenses we don't question. But at least the principle stands - you can still get the Atom source code[3] and pay someone as a contractor to change it for you, employ some people to work on it, start up a foundation, beg someone. Compared to a closed source program built on patented algorithms when the company shuts down and nobody can practically or legally improve it, or compared to a multiplayer game with online servers which the company shuts down and you can't use the game ever again, it is different.
[1] If you think it's impossible for Microsoft to reach into your Linux machine and take your Atom editor away, you'll see why EEE is a moral-panic rather than a real thing which could ever happen.
[2] you know, like Google actually does with HTML/Chrome strong-arming through Google-custom extensions, AMP pages, and the like. You'll see that this still hasn't resulted in other people being unable to make browsers or webservers or web-like protocols (Gemini).
Netscape Navigator was also open sourced, so I am confused what a project being open source has to do with Microsoft's business strategy. We factually know that Netscape's downfall was a result of the EEE strategy [0]. Just because Netscape rushed to open source Netscape Navigator when they saw their market sharing falling doesn't mean that Microsoft didn't employ EEE. If Microsoft had bought Netscape once Netscape was losing money hand over fist, it still wouldn't mean that Microsoft hadn't used EEE to help bring Netscape to that point. Just because Microsoft no longer has the majority mindshare of the browser market, should we ignore that event, or say it was ineffective, when it was very effective and very profitable for many years?
It is just a business strategy, that's all. And it's one that Microsoft employed successfully, and which people who join likely learn of or know of, and some of whom try to emulate to be successful at Microsoft now. And many of us don't like the effect EEE has on our industry, when Microsoft or any other entity does it. And just because Atom may not fit the strategy exactly, doesn't mean the unmistakable parallels which I already mentioned should be ignored. I personally used Atom, but more than that, I liked the world more when there was more than just one Electron based editor competing out there in the world, and we are seeing the fruits of VSCode winning so completely (both good and bad), whether through aggressive corporate strategies or not.
> "Microsoft's strategy to "kill HTML by extending it""
I'm still using HTML today. It hasn't been extinguished because it still exists. It's like complaining that someone murdered your dog, and I point out that your dog is still alive and you say "I'm confused what that has to do with anything".
Extinguish: "To put an end to or make extinct; destroy: synonym: annihilate."
You can still use Atom, it isn't extinct, destroyed or annihilated, and that's related to it being Open Source because there is no way for anyone to annihilate it when you can have your own copy of the source.
Compare that to the proposed "kill HTML by extending it" where, if webservers only served compiled ActiveX and you could only view that on Windows with IE and IE wouldn't render HTML, no amount of 'having the source' would let you use HTML to make web pages your customers could view. You'd put HTML on your webserver and your customers couldn't view it. You'd look at the IE source code and you couldn't distribute it. HTML would be killed as an interoperable standard, It's a difference in kind.
> "It is just a business strategy, that's all."
> "We factually know that Netscape's downfall was a result of the EEE strategy [0]"
We know that Microsoft made a product good enough that nobody bothered to install Netscape. If that's all EEE means it wouldn't have been an attempt to kill HTML. From your link "Extinguish: When extensions become a de facto standard because of their dominant market share, they marginalize competitors that do not or cannot support the new extensions." - is anyone seriously saying it was ActiveX which people loved and that's why they dropped Netscape? I don't remember ActiveX playing much of a part in the internet.
> I don't remember ActiveX playing much of a part in the internet.
The large company I work for still mandates IE11. Why do you think that is? If your corporate strategy gets you 20-30 years of vendor lock-in, then I would say it was a successful strategy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom_(text_editor)