Please don't FUD like this. Proprietary systems on top of Linux are nothing new and Microsoft certainly isn't the first company to have done it. If you have some real proof of their business plans then let's hear that rather than encouraging speculation and fearmongering.
I feel like taking an extremely cautious stance in regards to Microsoft is very fair, given that they were actually hauled in front of Congress for bad practices multiple times in the past...
As someone who wrote their first code for Linux in 1998 (a research project, not upstreamed), the whole "Microsoft loves Linux" thing is almost exactly like "Magneto loves the X-Men". I mean, I'm glad they're not calling us a cancer anymore, but I don't believe for a second they're a fundamentally different company; and I don't trust them one bit.
But the great thing about open-source is that bitter enemies can collaborate when it makes sense to do so.
(In this specific case, it’s because Linux has many in-kernel hypervisor systems, not just Microsoft’s. And at no point would they get rid of any of them, even if Microsoft’s is “better” in some sense. That’s not how Linux works: those systems are there to allow various groups to scratch their own itches, not as some central ideologically-driven top-down design. Microsoft can certainly add to Linux—anyone can—but nobody can force Linux to take away alternatives until it becomes dependent in some way on their particular code.)
> It's not FUD.
I'm sorry, but the sentence "every should be afraid of this" is literally Fear.
Yes, Microsoft has a history and yes, we should be cautious. But that's very different than calling for every person to be afraid.
These are all things that Microsoft is either owner or a strong participant. They aren't the same company as they used to be. They don't have one single product (Windows) that everything revolves around. They were losing too much (things like Mobile) to keep that strategy.