Quite interesting I find, some of the unfounded conclusions you seem to be making here...
And this notion comes from.......where again? Nowhere in the article you cited was there even a remote existence of an implication of any action on the part of Microsoft here, yet you seem to refer to it as sabotage. Try to remember that sabotage has to do with intentional action. A decision made by preference, on the sole part of the Russian government, without any apparent acknowledgement by or from Microsoft, is in no way an example of action on the part of the company. I'd caution you on the use of baseless claims. Do you at least have any sources hinting at any action Microsoft has taken here? If so, I'd be interested in seeing them.Microsoft is trying to sabotage huge project around Linux-based "national OS" (an OS, which is used internally for government tasks, but also planned for educational market) in Russia.
"Obvious" implies there must be a strong indication of something, presumably by a factual basis. Seeing no evidence here, as already mentioned, I'll be moving on...It is obvious Microsoft offered minister a bribe[...]
This happens to be a gross misstatement. Pretty much every country in the world uses at least one closed-source operating system, in addition to using open-source technologies. The two are not contradictory; numerous governmental agencies these days appreciate both types of software, although the general and primary motivation for their choices tends to be not necessarily concerned with the philosophies behind the software, but whatever "works." An example: the White House (at least its website) has servers running on Drupal, and powered by Linux, while the Department of Homeland Security generally uses Windows. The world does not always work the way you want it to, just because you may have a personal opposition to closed-source software.[...]because NO COUNTRY would use closed-source OS for internal tasks[...]
I'm unsure what to make of this statement. I'd rather not waste my time pointing out the fallacies of assuming that software is only purchased in the countries where the original company resides in...[...]unless creator company resides within this country(and falls into its jurisdiction).
Overall, while the original article seemed as a nice, simplistic read, your interpretation of it clearly lacks reasonable thought. As always, though, I'm open to your rebuttal...