Not according to the Ziff-Davis article they haven't:
- Microsoft's Mark Russinovich presumably heard what Stallman said at his talk (which was said to be a "mostly standard talk"). Stallman's talk usually includes a clear description of how the free software movement he started predates the open source development methodology by over a decade and stands philosophically distinct as well. Yet Russinovich claims Stallman's talk is "OSS-related" which is right in line with why the open source development methodology was started: corporate cooption of a social movement that was posing a real threat to proprietary software.
- ZDNet's article continues on this theme at the top and bottom of the article (as to be expected of corporate news which makes up the majority of computer news coverage and repeater/pointer sites like this one): "Each time Microsoft makes another open-source-related move these days, there are still always folks on Twitter or in comments on blog posts who caution that Microsoft hasn't really changed and never will be a true friend of open source. This change in Microsoft didn't happen overnight, but the momentum is growing.". Microsoft like "open source" instead of "free software" because open source doesn't question proprietary software, and thus doesn't question delivering proprietary software to OSes that respect a user's software freedom (the freedoms to run, inspect, share, and modify published computer software). The same opposition is as it was before, only the PR campaign has changed from namecalling ("Linux [sic] is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches") to appearing warmly welcoming ("Microsoft [heart symbol] Linux [sic]"). They dare not call a complete OS GNU/Linux (which it most likely is in both quotes) because that might bring software freedom to mind (I'll bet Stallman mentioned this as this too is part of every talk he's given for many years).
What Ziff-Davis calls Stallman's "distaste for Microsoft" is clearly-explained and principled objections based in the facts of how computers work and an ethical examination of how we ought to treat each other with computers. But in corporate media it's necessary to downplay principled examination and explication in order to diminish the severity of the objection.
Microsoft wants users to run a GNU/Linux system as a VM on top of Microsoft's system as that helps Microsoft collect payments (licensing or rent, depending on the details of hosting) and, perhaps more importantly, spy on literally every bit of data that the user's OS deals with. Spying is big business and directly tied to proprietary control over the user. Microsoft offers a service to help users host their VM on Microsoft-owned hardware (so-called "cloud computing") too. Just to show the stark difference: Stallman, by comparison, explains what "cloud computing" actually means in https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#CloudComp... and why you should only run VMs on free software systems you own and control.
No, Microsoft hasn't changed. In fact, nothing of substance has changed because ethics are too deeply rooted for any change and computing has only really altered in that more people are being offered computing services more than ever before. Software proprietors are still unmotivated by the same principles that software freedom activists are. Microsoft's change is quite superficial and PR-related: Microsoft has shifted their campaign from more honest but harsh terminology to more deceptive terminology which appears friendlier. The social harm of proprietary software continues apace.