So microsoft is making a proprietary OS based on Linux, which rides on proprietary hardware in a proprietary cloud. Vendor lock-in if I ever saw it.

I think along similar lines. I've been stating before I even used it day-to-day that GNU+Linux or, more generally, open development is the state of computer science and software -- if it's proprietary it's a blip and it's not sustainable.
Microsoft either have to accept that or they will, eventually, become extinct.

They can and they will (and probably have already) hurt several important projects though. It's not fearmongering to point out facts, how those facts contribute to Microsoft's unending quest to maintain a monopoly, or keep track of the latest efforts they have made-- particularly when (regardless of what you think of the stability of the ecosystem) they are buying things like Github and Red Hat was even on the table. (Which I predicted, after they bought Github.)

Saying Microsoft will never beat Linux is a bit like saying ISIS will never defeat the USA. Regardless of the truth of that, it doesn't magically make them into a non-problem.

Are they still trying to develop a monopoly? Yes, I wouldn't trust them if they weren't. That's how I expect a business to act. But is it productive to seek out the worst case scenario? No. Assess Microsoft (and for that matter, Apple) like you would any other risk.

Ironically, I think the best thing to happen to Linux was big business. Comcast, AT&T, I can imagine them wanting an OS for their products which is both first-rate -- ensuring that people will buy theirs over the competition -- and most importantly free thereby reducing the amount they have to pay out. If RMS and the "free software" contingent of the Linux world had had their way, I don't think it would be in the position it is now.

Great point - Linux owns the Internet in terms of server use. Microsoft offerings are just too expensive and unstable to have hundreds and hundreds of servers in a cloud env for example. So patch Tuesday you have to reboot 900 servers 3 or 4 times because Microsoft hasn't figured out how to chain patches together?

Agree, big business was/is good for Linux.

I have assessed them on their past behaviour and concluded that the worst case scenario is the only reasonable expectation where microsoft is concerned. Not fear mongering, but recognising a pattern.

I don't see how the GPL is antagonistic to business.

+1

History and our present situation with "open source" certainly proves that it is not - quite the reverse it would seem...

The GPL itself may not be, but wasn't that part of the reason the entire phrase "open source" was invented?