It wouldn't be fair to mention this without mentioning of the 3 fixes landed since that repo was created, 2 are for cross-browser compatibility bugs..
That aside, I love how this negativity only seems to stick to Microsoft when every other major player has their own private set of bits that only work well on their platform (WebOS, Firefox OS "proposed standard" mobility APIs, Chrome endless variety of "we're doing it so it's going to be a standard" APIs, etc). It's no excuse, but it's hardly unique to MS
The github issue for that is listed right under it. It looks like they may be pulling them in automatically via tags on the issues. If so, that's one of the best documentation -> issue systems I've seen.
Datacenter hardware designs are valuable. They solve physical limitations of heat dissipation, airflow, as well as compute power density problems and electrical stuff.
Companies building their own DCs spend a lot of money on doing this, so companies like Microsoft (I think Facebook do it too) showing off their designs is really useful.
Just IMO, but perhaps it doesn't "stick" because none of the other folks spent years trying to use their effective OS monopoly to extinguish everything that wasn't their proprietary browser.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but isn't NaCl meant to be cross-platform? ActiveX was basically "hook directly into Windows (and only Windows) from the browser." It gave many free-license to create "Windows-only" webpages, in addition to producing many security holes during its run. This is where much of the resentment comes from.
How many security bugs does NaCl have compared to ActiveX? How do Microsoft's attempts to sandbox ActiveX compare to the efforts made to sandbox NaCl? IIRC, you could format the C: drive in ActiveX with a couple of lines of code (by design). NaCl (so far as I know) isn't supposed to allow that.
As far as I'm concerned, NaCl and ActiveX aren't even in the same ballpark.
That aside, I love how this negativity only seems to stick to Microsoft when every other major player has their own private set of bits that only work well on their platform (WebOS, Firefox OS "proposed standard" mobility APIs, Chrome endless variety of "we're doing it so it's going to be a standard" APIs, etc). It's no excuse, but it's hardly unique to MS