In Microsoft's own words:

Summary: The sheer absurdity of claims that Microsoft -- which not only attacks those who distribute Linux and GNU but also blackmails them, takes them to court, or bricks their products without any liability -- 'loves' Linux

A followup on the story about Windows Update essentially bricking Linux devices (peripheral to the PC) is proving to be rather spooky. Nobody was going to court; people can apparently just brick hardware deliberately, without due process and without facing consequences for such destructive actions.

"Nobody was going to court; people can apparently just brick hardware deliberately, without due process and without facing consequences for such destructive actions."The curious thing here is the leeway it gives for Microsoft to brick installations of GNU and Linux, even if the 'alien' system is in its own partition. While some journalists are repeating Microsoft's lies about Microsoft 'loving' Linux we already know damn well that Microsoft hates GNU and Linux to the point of preventing sales of PCs with anything other than Windows, except perhaps in Italy owing to a top court's latest ruling.

How is bricking people's devices that are powered by Linux somehow acceptable or even legal now? It is done via Windows Update, which means that Microsoft now bricks Linux installations, whether unintentionally or intentionally (or somewhere in between). Will Microsoft also screw with the MBR/bootloader claiming that Free software infringes on its 'IP'?

The sad thing is that some pro-FOSS people are easily fooled (maybe willfully) into saying that "Microsoft loves Linux" (it can also be found in the Linux Foundation's Web site). "Read it all the way through," told me one of them. "They love Linux because of $s not for its own sake."

I responded by saying that Microsoft loves Linux like BP likes "green", mostly for marketing around perceptions that help sell more petrol

There was a a discussion in Twitter among some FOSS journalists, who do not necessarily agree. The OSI's President, for instance, tends to agree with me on that.

One of our readers wrote to say: "Unintentional disinformation regarding "contributions" to the Linux kernel. The large number of commits was simply unfucking the code. A question is does Microsoft maintain that code now that Greg fixed it, or did they just lay that egg in someone else's nest?"

When Greg worked for Novell, which had been paid money for Microsoft to help it infiltrate several FOSS communities, Microsoft committed GPL violations (not a sole incident) and now it hopes to spin that as "contribution". When will this revisionism end?

As a side note, layoffs at Microsoft continue to expand. The Microsoft booster wrote: "The cuts of approximately 3,000 employees today are believed to be largely support staff in human resources, finance, sales and marketing and IT. They are part of the 18,000 employees Microsoft officials said back in July that they'd be laying off over the course of a year."

Android and other Linux-based platforms hurt Microsoft. It leads to layoffs, so Microsoft cannot claim to love Linux. Although it may take some time, Microsoft may end up a bit like Novell and Nokia, potentially absorbed by some bigger business (Microsoft is shrinking in terms of scale of influence or clout). ⬆