I asked Jim Zemlin -- the Linux Foundation boss -- about Microsoft and if he ever could have predicted this would happen. He just laughed, but I could tell he enjoyed the irony too.
The Linux Foundation handles the Linux kernel, so they have a good track record in that regard. They also have worked on some less-successful (but very well-managed) initiatives like Meego and now Tizen.
The members are big corporations and as a result, the auditing process and outlay of funds isn't something I'd be concerned with.
The greater (potential) concern would be over how the corporate sponsors could influence a project. Zemlin assured me that the SOP is not to interfere with existing operational structures or governances of a project -- so they wouldn't have any impact on how the OSF is run, for instance -- and certainly, in the case of the Linux kernel, corporate sponsorship hasn't dictated Linus's direction of the project.
That said, I think the level of influence a corporation could have over a project is probably directly related to how a project is initially structured. Tizen, as an example, is in partnership with the Linux Foundation, but is largely led by Samsung and Intel. That's totally fine, and was that way by design.
I would be concerned about projects that might not have strong leaders (like Linus). Of course, one could argue that if that's the case, the project might have bigger problems than being co-opted by other entities.
There was time ,maybe a year back, where Microsoft turned out to be one of the Top contributors to Linux Kernel. They had to fix some issue on Linux kernel to run on HyperV
There was time ,maybe a year back, where Microsoft turned out to be one of the Top contributors to Linux Kernel. They had to fix some issue on Linux kernel to run on HyperV
Let's be very clear on this subject, though: Microsoft was doing it for their own benefit. It wasn't altruism.
The Linux ecosystem has a shit-load of money and OpenBSD claims to not seen a dime of it, despite Linux'es use of OpenSSH Portable. [0] One would think something as vital as OpenSSH would get a reasonable share of funding, rather than a huge lump-sum being showered on a single project in turmoil with questionable stewardship.
Agreed, I think the Linux foundation can fix this issue along with others by financially contributing to OpenSSH, OpenSSL, LibreSSL and other tools that we use (iptables, OpenSMTPD, Postfix, Dovecot, etc).
I think if Linux extended an olive branch to engage the three main BSD's, that would be a smart political and actual move. Religousity doesn't scale anything but egos and pitchfork-toting, angry people looking for an ego-oriented leader.
A wise Microsoft, which we might be seeing, would know that a bad Linux security foundation is just plain bad for business, for the Internet ecosystem and general trust in it (after all, most people don't know what sort of server they're connecting to), for sales of desktop Windows to surf in that ecosystem, etc.
A pragmatic Microsoft might be edging away from a "Windows or Death!" attitude. Didn't we read that after they bought Skype they replaced its skeezy "volunteer" supernodes with 10,000 systems running Linux? E.g. https://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+skype+linux+supern...
I interpreted that as part of their legal obligation to add eavesdropping capability to Skype, which was probably quite difficult with the more decentralized network. But overall, I'm pleasantly surprised by the number of pleasant surprises coming from Microsoft lately.
Lawful intercept could be added without routing all traffic to their nodes. Perhaps MS correctly realised that offering a service which uses arbitrary amounts of computing and bandwidth from users is a crappy thing to do and not in-line with an MS offering?
My one real question: How well has the Linux Foundation managed its money in the past? Are they going to be an effective steward of this fund?