Perhaps not.

But, not liking Microsoft's marketing and licensing tactics, or protesting them, does not make someone 'wacked', as you put it. Mundie and Ballmer themsevles were not above using combative rhetorical terms like "cancer" and "un-American" to describe Open Source and the GPL, methodologies they probably understand very well but chose to distort in their comments.

Since you stated that you didn't finsish the article then you obviously didn't read this part:

"...
The network computing concepts promoted by IBM, Oracle, Sun, and others were almost identical to .NET concepts as promoted by Microsoft. Just look at the Microsoft white paper on HailStorm published at www.microsoft.com/net/HailStorm.asp if you have any doubts. All of the network computing principles are there, including the most important one: That users should be able to access services from any location via simple appliances rather than having to duplicate services and data on individual PCs.

To realize the goals set forth by .NET, you have to have platform independence. Centralization of data and resources. Reliability through redundancy. In other words, you need to adopt all of the elements of network computing that were anathema to the mainstream media before they were re-invented by Microsoft. (It should come as no surprise that I should at this point remind you of Petreley's first law of computer journalism, which is "No technology exists until Microsoft invents it.")

The problem with Microsoft's .NET is that it is designed to establish Microsoft as the controlling entity of the future of network computing. Microsoft is not only planning to provide the platform and the tools. It is going to provide the authentication services that allow Microsoft to control how people use platforms and tools. It is the only way Microsoft can thrive in the post-PC world. Microsoft realizes it can no longer grow based on sales of software upgrades or licenses. So it has to start charging for authentication and access to services.

Many journalists recognize the most obvious consequence of this scheme. This is how Microsoft can keep you paying for its software without having to tempt you with updates.

But what many are missing is the more dangerous threat behind this closed part of Microsoft's so-called new open-standards approach to network computing. If Microsoft controls the management of user data and user authentication, it controls the flow of the services others can provide. It's the Windows desktop all over again, business-wise. You can't compete with Microsoft without first making a deal with Microsoft over something as basic as where your customer's data is stored and how one must access it.
...."
JLK