And people wonder why I still don't trust Micro$oft, even if they say they're supporting open source.
They are supporting open source, no? Could depend on your definition of course, but still.. Anyway: the tricky point here is that the division/department/whatever which deals with that is not the same one as the management (or whatever group) pushing for these advertisements. To the point that treating Microsoft as one big untrustable entity and putting a dollar sign in its name becomes a bit weird and overly general…
Yes, definitely they are. But with strings attached, in the form of WSL.
I'm patiently waiting for the day when they will announce that some big software/service from them (Office? GUI? Outlook?) will be finally integrated into Linux, but sadly it has to be WSL to work properly/faster/better/with support, that is, Windows, and not the real thing. The next big Linux distribution, the one that every business will take as the standard to make their products (and drivers!) compatible will carry the Microsoft brand. Microsoft attempted to kill Linux in the past, and failed spectacularly, so they're now aiming at controlling it by becoming a Linux vendor, possibly the biggest one.
One doesn't become Platinum Member at the Linux Foundation just for the lulz, especially when it costs about $500000 per year. https://blog.desdelinux.net/en/microsoft-joins-the-linux-fou...