IN ORDER to defeat "Open Source" (change it from the inside by tying it to Windows, software patents, etc.) Microsoft has been spreading lies recently about "loving" Open Source [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. All that pretense goes down the drain after these recent remarks from a Microsoft executive: [additional discussion at Slashdot]
Microsoft's Chief Exec For Latin America Says 'Open' Means 'Incompetent'
That's quite a statement, and one made with no basis whatsoever. Openness could "mask incompetence," but I'd argue that it's much easier to mask incompetence with a closed solution. Open generally is the opposite of "masking" anything. He also makes the typical FUDian arguments that open source is more expensive to run, which isn't quite accurate (or, realistically, depends on what it is you're trying to do). But this claim that openness is about incompetence is just plain ridiculous.