The man who spoke up probably has the best credentials in the world to speak about interoperability between Windows and Linux.
Andrew Tridgell, founder of the Samba project and a major FOSS luminary, did not speak about this subject; rather he focused on the way Microsoft manouevred the OOXML standard through the International Standards Organisation last year, using means which are widely acknowledged as being non-kosher.
Tridgell said Microsoft had subverted the entire standards process by ramming the OOXML standard through and the company should make reparations, including an apology.
He also pointed out that any collaboration between Microsoft and open source projects came as a result of judicial rulings, not otherwise.
Tridgell, it must be borne in mind, is one of an intrepid trio who fought tooth and nail to wrest an agreement with Microsoft that specifies that every one of Microsoft's network protocols which are used to work with Windows Server will be provided to a body known as the Protocol Freedom Information Foundation.
There was no maliciousness in anything Tridgell said but he had the weight of factual information behind him. And then other members of the audience began to raise their hands and ask questions.
One member of the audience, who appeared to be from New Zealand, (Update Jan 22: he later told me his name was Zane Gilmore) asked how a company that had proprietary software as its model could be taken seriously when it spoke about engaging with open source as doing so would be directly contradictory to its business philosophy.
After this it became a bit more animated, with various audience members asking questions and making suggestions to Crumpton, who had no option but to keep his cool and accept whatever was doled out.
The platform strategy group, according to Crumpton, is tasked with deciding on Microsoft's open source strategy.
But given the fact that he has been appointed to this particular role for just 18 months, 12 of which have elapsed, one wonders why he was sent to front up at the LCA.
Is there some reason why people are given such a short stint in a role like this? Free and open source software is organic in nature and one cannot expect anything to germinate in such a short time. Is this an indication that the whole campaign of so-called engagement with open source is just another party trick?