Here are some other opinions on whether Microsoft should do more to support the .NET open source community (the list also includes some related discussions):

Joe Brinkman wrote a great follow up to my earlier post, Microsoft Should Financially Support Open Source Projects. He made some important points better than I did in my original article. I hope everyone that reads my article also reads Joe's article.
We now have several people speaking out about the fact that the .NET open source community receives financial support from all types of individuals and entities in the .NET community except Microsoft. People ranging from students to developers to small companies to large companies are willing to make financial donations to .NET open source projects. To my knowledge, Microsoft refuses to do that. (Or it does it to such a small extent that it is insignificant.)

I left Jason Matusow a comment on his article about the Microsoft Open Specification Promise.

Jason Matusow graciously replied here. Jason, thank you for taking an interest in this topic. I think these issues are important to Microsoft as well as to the community of .NET developers. Jason also replied to my comment on his blog with some good points in a follow up comment.

Are there any truly upstanding citizen's on HP's board? I know they are in a tough position and I wouldn't want to be in that position. But none of them have exhibited the kind of behavior that exemplifies excellent character.
The person who is looking the best at the moment is Tom Perkins. See his full statement (pdf). Many are praising him.

JavaScript, Perl, PHP, Python and Ruby all have a lot of momentum right now. No doubt, they each have strong following, and dynamic languages as a whole are stronger than ever. How far can these languages go? eWeek has a good article discussing this question here. Most experts think there are serious limits to how far they can go in overtaking languages like C#, Java or C++ for large scale development.

Anders Hejlsberg says they lack scale. "Dynamic typing only scales so far," he said. "When you get into really big projects, it's problematic."

Historically, he's right. The eWeek article goes on to quote John Lam, a principal consultant and partner at Toronto-based ObjectSharp Consulting.

Many open source software products lack the sophistication of their commercial counterparts. It is all too common to see an open source project chasing the features and the level of polish of a competing commercial product. (Of course, there are a few exceptions, but those exceptions seem to exist in recesses.) I wish it wasn't so, but it has been like this for so long that I have often wondered if it would always be like this.