> First, I didn't say MS made a mistake
Of course you didn't. Quite the contrary, you suggested that MS can't make a
mistake. But you also suggested that I must think Microsoft made a mistake,
which I don't.
> Nor did I say that I thought MS believed it would gain or lose users. I was
questioning the assumption that this would be good for us because it would
lead more people to the free software movement. That assumption was the
primary one behind those arguing this was a good thing.
And it still might be true.
Think about this from our point of view. Let's suppose lots of people start
using Windows because they don't view proprietary software as unethical, and
this compatibility layer gives them all the convenience of running Ubuntu
without the inconvenience of switching between operating systems. Microsoft
gains users, and Linux loses users. But the libre software movement doesn't
lose anything.
On the other hand, if just one user finds it easier to transition to
GNU/Linux because of this, and does so because he finds out about the libre
software movement (from a separate source, mind), then this is beneficial to
us.
> Ultimately we are a competitor of MS.
Keep in mind that Canonical is not us. With Microsoft and Canonical
cooperating in this way, Canonical ceases to be a competitor. On the
contrary, Canonical is helping Microsoft compete against non-Ubuntu GNU/Linux
distros.
We, in the libre software movement, do try to compete with proprietary
software, but Microsoft cannot compete with our primary selling point:
liberty (at least, not without making its software libre, but at that point
we wouldn't be competing with them anymore). So if someone agrees with us,
none of this will make them consider Windows for even a second.
