points us to the news that a Microsoft exec is criticizing the Brazilian government's support for open source software
using some pretty weak arguments. This isn't new. For years, any government that supports open source software is attacked (falsely) as not supporting private enterprise. However, what's really ridiculous here is that the Microsoft exec in question, Hernan Rincon, president of Microsoft Latin America, seems to be making even more specious arguments than usual, claiming that "open" really is a way of saying "incompetent":
"When you can not compete, you are declaring open. This masks incompetence." (translated)
That's quite a statement, and one made with no basis whatsoever. Openness could "mask incompetence," but I'd argue that it's much easier to mask incompetence with a closed solution. Open generally is the opposite of "masking" anything. He also makes the typical FUDian arguments that open source is more expensive to run, which isn't quite accurate (or, realistically, depends on what it is you're trying to do). But this claim that openness is about incompetence is just plain ridiculous.