We've come a long way from the days when top Microsoft brass called Linux "un-American" and a "cancer." Or have we?

Microsoft's new point man on Linux, Martin Taylor, is making the rounds this week, informing folks that Microsoft is done with helping to fuel the never-ending Linux vs. Windows religious wars. Instead, Microsoft wants to focus on "facts," Taylor says, such as data provided by third-party studies (some of which will be funded unabashedly by Microsoft) designed to help customers evaluate open-source vs. Microsoft software.

Read More About Microsoft's New Linux Gun

Microsoft already has funded at least two such studies — last year's total cost of ownership study performed by International Data Corp. and the more recent embedded Windows vs. embedded Linux bake-off done by Embedded Market Forecasters. Microsoft's public sector unit has its own open-source vs. Microsoft studies involving government customers up its sleeve, as well, Microsoft officials have acknowledged.

Read LinuxDevices.com's Take on the Embedded Study

And eWeek on the TCO Study

Is this "focus on facts" an entirely new tack for Microsoft? No. Taylor's predecessor Peter Houston spent the past year-plus also trying to help steer Microsoft away from flaming the open-source community (with mixed success). It's also unclear the extent to which customers and developers will consider studies funded by Microsoft "factual."

To be successful, Microsoft's "just the facts" campaign needs to permeate the Microsoft corporate sales force and third-party integrators and resellers pushing Microsoft products. Just as importantly, the message needs buy-in at the highest level. That may prove harder to do.

At Microsoft's recent Financial Analyst Meeting, CEO Steve Ballmer spent a good part of his 45 minutes worth of official remarks berating open-source software and IBM, one of the main backers of Linux. While he toned down the inflammatory rhetoric a notch, Ballmer relied on the same old "innovation vs. commoditization" debate the centerpiece of his argument regarding the superiority of Microsoft's "closed source" approach vis-a-vis the open-source software philosophy.

Ballmer told Wall Street analysts and press attending the day-long summit in Redmond that Microsoft stands tall when you evaluate value/innovation vs. price; acquisition cost vs. total cost; amount of services purchased vs. amount of software purchased; coordinated innovation vs. fragmented community; simplicity vs. complexity; large customer base vs. small base; rapid responsiveness in terms of security vs. slower, uncoordinated response; and software profits vs. free work.

Check Out "Ballmer Still Tilting at Linux" for More

But in the same breath, Ballmer also railed on Microsoft rival and open-source backer IBM. Ballmer said IBM's inability to unduly influence the open-source process should raise customers' hackles. He questioned IBM's ability to determine open-source roadmaps; respond to customers' requests for new open-source features; deliver open-source fixes; and indemnify open-source-related intellectual property as it does for its own proprietary software products — ignoring the fact that were IBM to attempt to wrest control in any of these areas, the company would be booted from the open-source camp right quick.

Next week's LinuxWorld conference should offer some hints as to how well-received Microsoft's evolving message will be. In the meantime, what's your take? Is Microsoft turning over a new leaf, when it comes to its Linux competitive strategy? Or will convincing Ballmer not to bash Linux be as tough as persuading Sun CEO Scott McNealy to turn the other cheek and lose that "Top 10 Reasons to Raze Redmond" list?

Write me at mswatch@ziffdavis.com and let me know what you think.