Every now and then, some blogger working for a big website will write a story about how company Abc should make radical move Xyz in order to better, eh, well, that’s usually left in the dark. These are generally more akin to said bloggers hoping for radical move Xyz rather than there being a well-argumented reasoning. Radical moves in the technology business don’t happen very often, but when they do, there’s generally a good reason for them.
Take Apple for example. The company has gone through a number of radical moves, but all of them were actually necessary for the company to advance and remain viable. The classic Mac OS was a mess compared to its competitors, and as such, Apple needed to make a radical move in order to remain relevant: they created Mac OS X.
Moving forward a few years, Apple’s lower-end Macintosh offerings were heavily underpowered and overpriced because of IBM’s and Freescale’s lack of interest in developing desktop PowerPC chips. Apple’s laptops were running behind the competition, and even the company’s high end machines were too expensive for what they offered. They had to make a radical move in order to remain viable, and so they moved to Intel. Apple’s machines became not only more powerful, but also a lot cheaper.
Microsoft has also went through a number of radical moves, but they were generally less obvious, or they took more time. They moved from Windows 9x to Windows NT, an operating system they had written from scratch. Another, less obvious radical move is the interface overhaul between Office 2003 and Office 2007. Both of these were necessities, as the ‘old’ products (respectively Windows 9x and the default menu-driven interface) simply couldn’t handle the demands of the modern times.
All of the above moves were successful because they were needed. So, does Microsoft really need to open source Windows, as eWeek’s Jason Brooks suggests? Or is it more of a wish? What problem does it solve? Is Microsoft’s situation dire enough to warrant such a move, probably the most radical move in technology, in like, ever?
Vista was a marketing and technical disaster, but still, it didn’t hurt the company that much, and with Windows 7 being so well-received in the media, I don’t think Microsoft should be so worried as to consider open sourcing Windows.
For now, at least.
I have always thought that the best competitor to Windows, bearing in mind that people need compatibility in this world, would be a well-funded ReactOS project (maybe one of Microsoft’s competitors could step in to provide finance…) If there was a viable F/OSS implementation of Windows and, importantly, that implementation was not controlled by MS then we might see it improve in ways that could not have been imagined before (in the same vein as the recent Mono on iPhone and Wii story).
I am also unsure as to why MS would wish to liberate Windows at the moment as there isn’t really any market pressure to do so. However, this could be a good thing, because as long as Windows isn’t open, there remains the opportunity for ReactOS to get its foot in the door (if someone would give the project the resources it needs to truly compete).
ReactOS is chasing a moving target. They would need to perfectly recreate an exact copy of a recent version of Windows in order for it to be of any use. And even then there would be too many things it couldn’t do that the latest Windows could. They could never catch up, no matter how much money you threw at them.
The cost of creating Windows is vast. The cost of recreating it would surely be equally as vast, even given that you don’t need to design it and even if you rely on the community for testing. It’s never going to be worth the enormous, speculative investment of any or all of Microsoft’s competitors. They’ve got more chance of Linux gaining a foothold in the market.
Don’t get me wrong, I heartily approve of the project. I’m sure it helps with Wine getting Windows apps running under Linux. I just don’t think that large amounts of cash would turn it into a real challenge for MS.
Could MS open source Windows even if they wanted to? Who knows what sort of licensed code bits have found their way in there over the years, how many patent issues might come up, etc.?
Maybe I’m just being nieve, but I’d like to think that Microsoft have enough developers not to need to illegally copy other licensed source.
And as for patent issues – there’s already a mess of companies suing other companies and MS already claim to own a significant number of the patents in question – so I can’t see them being any more or less vulnerable by open sourcing.
Either way though, it’s never going to happen (at least not to the FSFs definition of OSS) – and nor should it when it’s MSs property and income.
There’s plenty other Free/open source OSs out there that are, in my opinion, equally as capable as Windows for most jobs so I’m not going to lose any sleep over closed source windows.
That’s not the point. While Microsoft can legally license and thus use other people’s code, they cannot legally “open source” such code.
This is an issue that is faced by any closed source project that seeks to go open source. See Open Office, Java, etc.
There’s bound to be some/lots of legacy OS/2 code floating around in there also.
And I don’t think IBM is likely to be helpful when it comes to freeing that up 🙂
I have yet to come across any IBM or OS/2 code in the base parts of the system, and I doubt it exists in modern versions of Windows (there used by a an OS/2 environmental subsystem, but that was eliminated back in XP).
On the other hand, there are little bits and pieces of Intel code here and there that were written under agreement.
Edited 2009-01-14 14:07 UTC
That’s exactly the same problem that SUN had when they open sourced Java, Solaris, etc. As SUN has proved, to open source a multitude of different systems are possible, but take a lot of hard work and dedication and negotiations where money is involved. But it is possible. SUN has done this.
This is not an issue if MS really wanted to open source. They could do it if they wish.
stupid question. Of course, the answer is NO!
Indeed.
I might hate pretty much every version of Windows (aside 2000) and I might think that it’s bloated yet still lacking a number of (for me) the must-have features OS X and UNIX/Linux offer – but at the end of the day Microsoft is a business and Windows is their income.
If I don’t like Windows, then I don’t use it – simple as.
I don’t whine on about how such-and-such open source licence would be better than propriatry software. I just use and support the opperating systems I like.
Really is? Than tell it my boss, or our IT department that took years to setup our IT environment as it is now. Or tell it all people that are using special scientific, business or what ever special needs software that is only available for Windows.
What you and “Joe the Plumber” like does not matter. What Siemens, Deutsche Bank, Boeing, and Gazprom like is relevant because they have the cash to pay software developers or SaaS providers to engineer, maintain, AND support software THEY want.
If you’re a member of the IT department then you’re in a position to change the network – or even un a non-MS OS on your own work desktop.
If you’re not a member if the IT department then this whole thread is irrelevent as you’d have no control over the software loaded – be it if Windows was open sourced or not.
* A lot of software that there’s no FOSS alternative runs ok in Wine or ReactOS.
* Games consoles are just as good as PCs for games.
* Graphic designers, laptop DJs, musicians / producers / engineers can all use OS X.
* Professional FX studios for movies usually run their own software in Linux
Granted, if a company forces you into using Windows, then you have little choice. But my point was other OSs are mature enough that, should you have a choice of OS, you could replace Windows with x, y or z.
It matters enough for Microsoft to spend $millions on pushing their software onto us minions.
I don’t deny that, but then the general public wouldn’t be directly using those systems – hense back to my earlier point.
If you’re a member of the IT department then you’re in a position to change the network – or even un a non-MS OS on your own work desktop.
If you’re not a member if the IT department then this whole thread is irrelevent as you’d have no control over the software loaded – be it if Windows was open sourced or not.
* A lot of software that there’s no FOSS alternative runs ok in Wine or ReactOS.
* Games consoles are just as good as PCs for games.
* Graphic designers, laptop DJs, musicians / producers / engineers can all use OS X.
* Professional FX studios for movies usually run their own software in Linux
Granted, if a company forces you into using Windows, then you have little choice. But my point was other OSs are mature enough that, should you have a choice of OS, you could replace Windows with x, y or z.
It matters enough for Microsoft to spend $millions on pushing their software onto us minions.
I don’t deny that, but then the general public wouldn’t be directly using those systems – hense back to my earlier point. [/q]
Not necessarily true. Although I can make those changes as an IT professional it is not a very realistic thing to try and accomplish so long as Windows dominates the market as it does. I would love to switch everyone to Linux for the cost savings alone but we have a lot of programs that run exclusively on Windows and although WINE may be an option for some of those it is not viable for all. Not to mention the training involved. Anyone in the IT industry should know how difficult it is to make a switch like that. And in the end, the company owner would be the one to make that final decision. It’s not an easy sell.
So possible: yes. Realistic: not yet.
“Games consoles are just as good as PCs for games. ”
game consoles are even more closed than PC’s! At least with Windows, anyone can make and distribute any game they want and they can be played on any PC.
Well, presumably your IT department is vigilant about maintaining the environment and keeps it flexible enough to adapt to change.
WRT to special scientific software, that’s clearly Linux domain today (and increasingly so), at least with regard to physical sciences. That’s the domain I operate in, and while we still have vendors that sell Windows software, the majority of software is either Linux, or Linux and Windows. Even Agilent is moving that way, and they were one of the staunchest Windows hold-outs. Not that IT doesn’t put Windows on everyone’s desktop (except the physical chemists in our org, they have Linux desktops), but it’s increasingly to run Notes and Microsoft Word — in most other respects they act as thick terminals to apps hosted elsewhere on our network (generally running Linux).
[p]What you and “Joe the Plumber” like does not matter. What Siemens, Deutsche Bank, Boeing, and Gazprom like is relevant because they have the cash to pay software developers or SaaS providers to engineer, maintain, AND support software THEY want. [/q]
Poor examples. I don’t know about Gazprom, but most of Boeing and Deutsche Bank’s server assets run on Linux. The key exception is their E-mail and directory services. Boeing still uses MS Exchange for most of that (save for DNS). Deutsche Bank migrated from Notes on Windows to Exchange on Windows a while back, and they’re still reeling from that a little bit. Ironically. Deutsche Bank uses primarly SuSE linux for much of their infrastructure and they were Microsoft’s first client for Linux support (sounds bizarre, but it was a product of that MS-Novell deal about 3 years ago).
In a word No.
In another word No.
If they did then the whole world would see the following:-
1) How crappy the code is in places. (I’m being generous here. Some of it is bound to be good)
2) All the bits of code that they have nicked possibly illegally from other companies thus allowing themselves to be sued into oblivion
3) All the backdoors would be exposed for every hacker in the world to target with all sorts of crap/malware/virus/rootkits/etc.
4) Every MS consultant would be doing themselves out of a job. There would be no hidden tricks they could use to keep customers locked in to their particulr gravy train.
etc etc etc
IMHO, Not a chance. No way. No how. Ever.
They call it shared source:
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/default.mspx
As I understand it, big customers who pay for it can read the source. They can’t change it but they can ask…
This is far from OSI approval and even more far from the FSF, but isn’t that some kind of open source?
Anyway, I don’t care. I hope they don’t open source it to everybody because that would put everybody in the risk of violating their copyright accidentally or at least being accused of it, even for those who didn’t see it.
Edited 2009-01-13 10:55 UTC
Ford should give up all their patents!
more accurately would be:
Ford provide all the technical designs and engineering data for the cars that they provide.
Edited 2009-01-13 11:24 UTC
Mercedes-Benz allows competitors to freely use their safety related patents. MB invented crumple zones, seat belt pre-tensioners and a host of other safety features.
Wow some people are trolling. Shared source as stated is already available under some conditions, and having read part of it, it’s not any more mess than other “competitors”‘ code. Every kernel has good parts and oh-my-god-who-ever-wrote-that-crap parts, codewise.
Onto the topic, no, MS doesn’t need it. They made some moves toward open source, and imo that’s good, but I doubt we’d see office and windows going that way. Most users don’t need it, tech support can access the source directly or indirectly, developpers may be able to ignite changes in functionalities or have their development integrated through MVP partnership (or whatever it’s called), and MSDN documentation is getting better every day.
Open source Windows ? No, why ?
They should open sourced the .net framework and perhaps internet explorer and then give a basic Windows for free.
Windows do not have to ve open source. Why they should do that? It will not give them more money. It will not give us better technical support. It will not give us anything better. I think many people would start making own windows distro & we will see the distro hell like in Linux. & it;s bad so, it;s better if windows stays as 1 project.
Edited 2009-01-13 11:44 UTC
Last I checked, there were far, far more versions of Windows Vista than just one… from OEM and Retail, to 32-bit and 64-bit, to Upgrade and Full, and at least a half-dozen “versions” based on a specific “use” (Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, Ultimate, etc.). All of them are either lacking desirable features (artifically requires you to “upgrade” by tossing more money their way), or downright expensive.
I think in general a lot of good would come out of third-party Windows OSes, but at the same time it’s highly unlikely I would use another Windows OS again. It would be interesting, but I just wouldn’t care.
Yes & No
Yes because there are few Windows versions (liko distros), & no because all run same software, same drivers, same kernels, & all use same configuration methods & are same in that way. It’s just like one distro, but in many variations, but it;s still the same piece of software. For example one .exe installer works everywhere from 1995 year (Windows 95) up to Windows 7 that will be released in 2010. This is impossible in Linux, even at one & the same distro. So open source ofcourse gives chance to tweak everything, make some parts better “for you”. But it’s making software less time resistant & less stable in that way. & spreading developers on many projects instead making one solid & stable together. I choose second option 
So i think, open sourcing Windows may make it better & worse in the same time, but the worse effect is to dangerous for typical user.
Edited 2009-01-13 13:07 UTC
I disagree, having tried to install certain older games that don’t work well under XP, and refuse to work under Vista. Also many older pieces of hardware require drivers that either make Windows unstable, or don’t work at all. You cannot rely on old software to work under Windows, and if you cannot access the source you may never get it to work.
This is one reason why we would like Windows to be made Open Source.
Microsoft may have tried to maintain backwards compatibility at the expense of code bloat (hundreds of exceptions to the rules so that everything works), and things do work most of the time, but the solutions to some of the problems are more arcane than anything you’ll find in GNU/Linux. It also makes Windows increasingly difficult to maintain and release new versions. One day they’ll either be forced to abandon backwards compatibility or face a system that slows to a halt.
Meanwhile, the Linux kernel supports far more older hardware than Windows, and has excellent support for most new hardware (provided the manufacturer releases proper hardware specifications or supplies drivers).
Most old free software is reasonably likely to run provided the appropriate libraries are still available, and even very old applications can be made to run, since you have access to the source. Sometimes they rely on other old interfaces that have been made obsolete (which is perfectly healthy for a system), but you never face a completely dead end.
Well, but i didn’t try to compare it to Linux directly, as is. I just compare closed source, to open source (& used Linux as example).
Ofcourse there are old apps that will not work in Vista (it is because changing some arch things that You just say about to fix some problems), but many, really many will just work “out of the box”. Users don’t care if they get source of software, because they will not port it anywhere. They just wanna something to work out of the box. & open source isn’t good for that & yes, Linux is example of that, also BSDs are.
So, typical user don’t care if software is open/closed source. He just wanna use it in simple way. Closed source is better then, because it force developers to make it be easy installed & have some technical support. They just can’t say (go fix it urself) like in Linux/BSDs.
Edited 2009-01-13 14:12 UTC
Yes, saying “go fix it yourself” isn’t exactly a useful answer, but in theory it gives you options you wouldn’t otherwise have, and if you are a corporation then you can afford to employ someone to do the work for you. I suppose this leaves the home user in the lurch either way.
However there is nothing inherent about closed source that makes it easier to install. Many F/OSS apps are as easy or easier to install than their proprietary counterparts: it is easy to create a new directory and put all the libraries you’ll ever need in it, and then the program could work forever with any OS, whereas many closed source apps tend to spread their data about and hide configuration options in the registry.
Consider OpenOffice.org and Microsoft Office, or Firefox and IE8: neither of the closed source programs will still work immediately without reinstallation (or “repair”) after the OS has been reinstalled, but both the free/open source programs will.
Also many Linux distributions rely on the fact that their centralised install methods are easier than a separate installation program for every app or library. Without this ease of use they could never hope to start attracting the mass users.
What rubbish! Plenty of Linux distro’s work out-of-the-box (Ubuntu being a classic).
Sure, you may have to load in Windows drivers manually into Ubuntu (and by manually, I mean with a GUI tool that’s stupidly easy to use), but if you were to use native linux drivers then everything automatically installs without even the users knowlage.
Now name me one occation when you’ve done a clean install of Windows and you hadn’t had to load in even 1 driver manually (be it printer, scanner, wifi, GFX, or whatever)?
Also, how often have you had to reboot the machine after installing a new USB device? (and even had to reinstall said USB device simply because you plugged it into a different USB socket!). Most open source OSs requires significantly fewer reboots after software install than Windows – surely that’s more benefitial to the home user as well?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not out to say one OS is better than another, but to say open source doesn’t work “out of the box” is absolute rubbish.
So if you go to the store and buy a brand new scanner, take it home, plug it into a Linux box, and the device is not recognized, how many times has there been a ‘quick start guide’ for Linux in the package, with a CD and step-by-step instructions on how to set it up? To me, that’s more important than whether or not an OS is able to detect a 15yo SCSI RAID controller that I have somewhere in the closet.
Honestly, reboots in modern versions of Windows aren’t nearly as big of a problem as many people make it out to be. It requires a lot fewer reboots than it used to. Sure, sometimes I still gotta reboot, but I just go take a piss, and by the time I get back, it’s done.
It’s not like home users are running servers, thus I don’t think I’ve ever heard one complain that they had to reboot after installiing a piece of hardware/software. You see, unlike some geeks that run *nix, Windows users don’t sit around, jerking off in their basement while staring at their uptime statistics.
Windows step-by-steps you describe only explain how to install the drivers – not what to do should the drivers fail to load. So your example is flawd.
However, for the sake of discussion: *IF* the scanner isn’t automatically picked up then you can almost garentee that there’ll be a thread about it on any major Linux distro’s forum (even computer novices know how to work a search engine these days)
Though I would be very suprised if there wasn’t a driver around to provide even standard functionality.
Cool, then you’d be glad to know that Linux supports both old and *NEW* hardware.
Given how long it takes windows to shutdown and start up, I think any reboot is 1 reboot too much.
You see, people don’t turn their computer on just to generate toilet brakes.
Well I’ve heard plenty of people complain. Particularly people who have uni assignments due in that day and just wanted to print the damn document.
Now you’re just sounding like a narrowminded fanboy. Offensive comments like that only serve to undermine any respect I (or anyone else reading this discussion) has for your opinion.
As I said before – I’m not out to say x is better than y, so why post ignorant flame-bait?
Edited 2009-01-14 00:43 UTC
unless you are part of an organization, don’t say “We”
I for my part don’t want Windows opensourced. OSS Windows is already under development. It’s called ReactOS. If you want an OSS Windows, support them.
Why not? If Windows were opensourced then you could take all the code you wanted and put it into ReactOS, or fix the code in Windows. Otherwise it’s just pride and reinventing the wheel. I would prefer my software now, not in 10 years time.
We.
— Edit —
There was possibly more emotion than logic thinking in this post, but I’m fairly convinced on two issues:
1) Open sourcing Windows would benefit us. Hence we. It’s entirely hypothetical anyway, and it’s not going to happen.
2) React OS would benefit from Open sourcing Windows. Or maybe they could start working on Windows code instead. Either way the community (we) would benefit.
Note: there are probably downsides to open sourcing Windows that I haven’t thought of (other than human nature).
Edited 2009-01-13 15:47 UTC
“Why not? If Windows were opensourced then you could take all the code you wanted and put it into ReactOS, or fix the code in Windows. Otherwise it’s just pride and reinventing the wheel. I would prefer my software now, not in 10 years time.”
The Windows wheel was invented a long time ago. NT 3.1 came out in the early 90s. TCPIP in the early 80s. That’s not a very good argument, and as far as pride goes, what’s wrong with pride? If I was one of the coders working on Windows, for the most part I would be very proud. It’s very complex, and works quite well. As well as my Debian box, or my FreeBSD box.
I see no reason to opensource it, and I see no validity to your arguments.
If the Windows source code was freed, then the community could improve Windows, or use the information to improve ReactOS and wine. Pride is saying “we’re doing a perfectly good job ourselves, we don’t need it”, and leads to reinventing the wheel – trying to write code that already exits.
There are countless areas where better APIs or free access to the source would improve our ability to make programs work on Windows, or make Windows only programs work under GNU/Linux or OS X, or any other OS. Right now we spend a lot of time blindly trying figure out how things work, we get there in the end, but it is a difficult task.
The only downside is the “security through obscurity” argument, by which malicious programmers would find it easier to attack Windows users.
I fail to see the validity of your arguments either, and namedropping BSD doesn’t make an argument.
Why is that is MS’s best interest? Nobody would pay for Windows anymore, and then the source would balkanize into a thousand distros, all sort of incompatible. Windows and Office is their bread and butter, it is inconcievable that they would do this, they would have to spend years making sure that they could release all the code, then they would have to take out and fix all the code they couldn’t release, and then they would lose their main source of income.
Not smart.
MS doesn’t care if their stuff runs on other OS’s. It’s not their problem, it is not most people’s problem. As far as the APIs go, it’s fairly easy to write programs for Windows, the .NET framework, while not perfect, is pretty comprehensive, and if that isn’t powerful enough for ya, there is 15 years of win32 api and documentation. Writing programs for Windows has never been easier. I find writing programs (not shellscripts) for Linux much harder, though that too is getting easier.
I never made that argument, I agree, it’s a bit of a strawman. At the same time however, there is no real benefit for MS either, as they would have to take out so much stuff licensed (or stolen) from other companies that they would introduce thousands of new bugs and vulnerabilities, leaving Windows in a worse state than it is (which is pretty good, I think)
That’s called a comparison. Ever done one? It helps when deciding what OS to use for a particular task. I can compare all three because I use all three, daily. Do you use Windows enough to be able to speak about it with authority? I’ve been using FreeBSD since about 1999. I like it. I use it. I like it better than Linux.
I know people on this and other forums, that haven’t used Windows in years, and still believe it acts like Windows ME, crashing all the time, and generally being a pain in the ass. You call it name dropping I call it stating enough of my background so that you might understand that I am not a fanboy, and that I actually have enough knowledge to make proper decisions and statements about the capabilities of those 3 OS’s.
If you look at my comment history, I don’t usually mention or chime in about other OS’s because I don’t have enough knowledge about them. I wish others did the same.
Of course it’s probably not in MS’s best interest! Despite the topic title, this is an entirely hypothetical discussion and I never believed MS would open their source. I’m discussing this from the position of the users, not MS’s top brass. On the other hand, Apple use Darwin, which is open source, and it hasn’t harmed them at all.
Okay, I’m probably mixing up APIs and functionality here. I write models simulating disease spread, not applications.
I’ve had friends show me BSD, praise how well it works, and say how much more elegant it is than Linux, and I’m happy that FreeBSD is a good OS. But you didn’t make a comparison, but just included its name. No I haven’t read your comment history, but feel free to read mine and have a good laugh at where I’ve gone wrong in the past. (I do try to make useful arguments rather than just troll forums for responses).
The idea of Wine/ReactOS is that we can have a F/OSS OS that can still run the Windows programs that users want, without tying them to the non-free OS that they are otherwise forced to use.
What I want you to tell me (and the reason for this volley of comments), is why does freeing up the Windows source code (something that isn’t going to happen or in MS’s best interests) not going to improve the situation for users (or help F/OSS software developers help improve the situation for users)?
Because it would force MS to remove functionality from Windows (licensed code) or replace it with new code, which would contain new and interesting bugs compared with the existing code. Security would suffer, and it would take time to bring the new code up to parity of the old code.
Also, I think Windows would fragment into 42,000 different distros, with each one slightly incompatible, and each with it’s fanboys recommending their favorite version to others. On top of that, right now almost every google search returns thousands of tips and tricks and howtos. Each version of Windows may work slightly differently, but there is a certain amount of consistency (at least at the version level) after the fragmentation that consistency will eventually be watered down as the GUI changes at the distro level which will make finding help on the internet for the average user much more difficult.
That’s not even close to the truth. If it were, windows software wouldn’t carry OS versions in it’s system requirements.
To use another example: 16bit EXEs won’t run in Windows 7 (nor Vista iirc)
You even get applications that wont run on XP unless you have SP2 or higher. Visual Basic applications require VB runtime files installed and some applications even demand intenet explorer at a set version level.
I believe that Microsoft officially recognizes 7 distinct versions of Windows Vista, 3 of XP, and 5 of Windows Mobile. It’s been a long time since I wrote for them, but they were always pretty good about laying out which features were associated with which version so that you could accommodate the differences.
Some of us prefer the word “choice”.
On topic I don’t think Microsoft have anything to gain by open-sourcing Windows. The majority of users don’t care and the majority of those that do care are too anti-MS for it to make any difference.
For?
Windows being closed source isn’t the real issue.Fair pricing and quality of product are the issues.
People just dont ditch Windows because its closed source,they ditch it because they dont feel adequately compensated for what they are paying.
Even if they did open source Windows I could not care less. I don’t know of any single piece in there that would be unique or impressive in any way.
I also dislike the term Distro hell used by Nicram. Each distro has an intended audience. Diversity is a good thing. The problem might be interoperability between distros with the same audience.
as others have said there is really no need to open source windows.
Singularity is already out there for academic use.
I agree with the other poster, some products could do with being open, .Net framework would be a good one.
However one thing Microsoft really need to do is make two versions of Windows Home and Business (Although in my opinion i think it should be one). They should be a lot cheaper aswell.
Personally, I don’t think they should, and I don’t believe they can due to licensing issues. What I wish they would do is better document the mystery API’s that are available plus better document just how their system works. This would allow developers to build better applications.
‘Windows’ represents a lot of things:
1) the kernel.
2) the protocols.
3) the APIs.
4) the applications.
From all the above, what should be open sourced?
Good point.
I belive it is much more important to have the “interfaces” open rather than the source, so that people will be able to use whatever replacement component from other vendors. That includes the API, the protocols and other interfacing technologies (MS Exchange communication protocols, Office documents formats, etc), assuming complete technical details are given. This way MS is not forced to disclose (most of) its secrets (dirty or not) while giving the clients the deserved freedom to switch and giving the other companies a fair chance to compete.
That would pave the way for the Wine/ReactOS folks to be able to fully support running native Windows applications from various vendors, without having to run (even parts of) MS Windows.
And while we are on this topic, I always thought that it would be a good idea for legislation that forces whatever product that dominates more than (say) 50% of a [large] market to have open interfaces to be introduced globally. It really makes sense and protects the clients from being ‘locked’ into a specific product by monopolistic companies.
Edited 2009-01-13 17:40 UTC
Con – If Microsoft were to open-source all of Windows, that would make apparent the anti-user parts of Windows that are not written for the benefit of the end user, but rather are written to satisfy the best interests of Microsoft and its partners.
Con – If Microsoft were to open-source all of Windows, end users would have a chance to re-compile a version for themselves that did not include the anti-user bits of Windows.
Con – If Microsoft were to open-source all of Windows, and since Windows has no filesystem support for execute permissions per file, then malware authors would have a field day.
Pro – If Microsoft were to open-source all of Windows, they would gain great kudos from all of the software development community worldwide.
Con – If Microsoft were to open-source only parts of Windows, they would gain no kudos at all, yet still open up the OS further to exploitation by malware authors.
Con – If Microsoft were to open-source only parts of Windows, this would immediately identify which pieces of Windows contained the anti-user functionality (ie. those pieces that remained closed).
Pro – If Microsoft were to open-source all or part of Windows, it would become easier for Microsoft to maintain since there would become a vast army of people who knew the source code and who have a desire to fix issues they have with it.
Con – If Microsoft were to open-source all or part of Windows, there would subsequently be a lot of people trying to claim some kind of IP violation by Microsoft.
— All in all, the Cons seem to dominate. Microsoft won’t open source Windows.
Edited 2009-01-13 13:35 UTC
…?
NTFS has supported this through ACLs since god knows when – in fact, it has been part of Windows NT since day one, you know when the rest of the world was still figuring out protected memory.
Edited 2009-01-13 14:52 UTC
Ahhh, those statements just made me spit my coffee out my nose. Anti-user bits? Hahah, made my day.
Edited 2009-01-13 15:15 UTC
but microsoft are evil! there MUST be anti-user bits!
Why would it? It is just a phrase that is intended to encompass all of the bits of Windows that are of absolutely zero use to end users, or even negative utility, that are placed in the code in order to advance the best interests of Microsoft and its business partners.
Activation codes, WGA, spyware, the requirement to use ActiveX to do updates, and hence the requirement to retain IE on the system … there are quite a number of these. They all provide the end user with absolutely no benefit at all.
I’m not even arguing harm (such as the lock-in to Windows that things such as this facilitate) … I’m just grouping all the things that are in Windows that have no benefit at all to the end user (who is after all the party expected to pay for Windows).
If there were a way to have Windows without the zero-benefit-to-users bits, by compiling it from opened source, then that would be the very first thing that happened immediately after Microsoft released the source code.
MS puts no spyware on your PC, I dare you to show me one shred of evidence of MS produced spyware. The opt out “Improve Windows/Office/Visual Studio” prompts don’t count, as they are upfront and honest about it, and if you say no, it means no.
Activation codes and WGA? Activation is never a big deal, I’ve even had to phone in before, and it’s never taken more than 5 minutes. Is it really that different from stores putting tags on their products to make sure you don’t steal from them? What about bars that have bouncers that pat you down before you go in? Every company has a right to protect the investment in whatever product they are selling. Activation has never caused me really any huge issues, buggy drivers and software cause me more problems than WGA and activation. They even relaxed activation a lot in Vista, so they seem to be taking complaints like yours into account.
ActiveX to do Windows update? what difference does that make? Not to mention the fact that since Vista came out, they no longer do that, Windows update is a real app, not a web app, so they even addressed that rather dubious issue. Windows update provides a clear benefit to the user, regardless how it is implemented.
There has been a lot of nasty stuff that MS has done over the years, but none of the things you mention even make a difference, IMO.
No but maybe they could give away Windows 7 for free, as a mea culpa and peace offering to win back customers. Or give away the basic Win7 for free.
Another thought. How much of the Windows source code is licensed from other companies? Rhetorical question. Just like IBM can’t open source OS/2, or at least they can’t open source all of it, maybe MS couldn’t even if they wanted to.
maybe Microsoft could release a “lite” version, and if you want the more “bells and whistles” features then subscribe/pay for them on a module basis….
that way everyones a winner…
the home user gets what they want, all be it, a limited version, corporates buy the modules they need, and Microsoft benefits on a module purchase basis (maybe something like the way the repositaries work in linux)
my ten peneth..
Edited 2009-01-13 15:46 UTC
I think they’d rather try to sell you the computer that way
If you wanted to making a case for Microsoft opening their code under the GPL or similar, you would have to argue that the open source method is so superior than unless Microsoft adopted it they would go under. No doubt some people do think that, which is fine, but I suspect very few do. The open source method has its downsides too.
In a curious way, while Microsoft may not have opened their code to all-comers, they have opened the profits derived from it, via the Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation. So some, at least, of what goes around does come around. Had Window always been open source, then the chances are that the Foundation would have a fraction of its present, huge resources.
So it may be that the philanthropy derived from the Gates Foundation will turn out to be of greater benefit to the world than an open source Windows. Come back in a century for an answer to that one, I guess.
There is something similar to the GPL ? Answer is no.
Open Source method is superior and that’s why Microsoft as changed it’s development method towards it , otherwise their old method would have put them under a long time ago. That’s why they splited the OS from IBM.
Open Sourcing/sharing the OS then. One can say a lot of things about Microsoft but they have a tendency to adapt what works from others and make it there own.
Open Source as no downside , it’s goal is to create more powerful and better code over time. Real Open Source is never abandoned and always being developed forward.
Your arguing that there foundation ultimately excuse there lack of real Open Source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_and_Melinda_Gates_Foundation
Focus : Education, Healthcare, Ending poverty.
#1 Problem in education is the rising cost of Microsoft education software and OS , even in the US of A.
#1 Problem in healthcare is the lack of doctor due to lack of education worldwide , Lack of tools for cheap diagnostic too.
#1 Problem of poverty is the cultural divide between the poor and the rich , the lack of education between the two and the lack of accssible ressource and real fundings.
All Problem that have Microsoft Windows dominance to thanks for there problem in some way.
Your also insinuating that Open Source as no charitable contribution and that it don’t make as much money.
Take the number of Microsoft employee worldwide vs the number of GNU/Linux employee and you already have more employed people in GNU/Linux and as you know they are not the only free software and Open Source around …
With most people having a median lifespan of 72 years , asking people who disagree , to come back in 100 years , is a bit dishonest and morbid.
In retrospect most people have no real problem with how Microsoft develop it’s code , as it usually end up releasing something that work , for a number of people , it’s with it’s incompatibility true change to standard and it’s refusal to let other fix the problem , that Microsoft own user’s , have trouble with Microsoft lack of real Open Source development.
Their competitor have similar problem but the lack of support for Microsoft own domining product on there platform and it’s refusal to support or allow other to support them on other platform is mostly due to politics on Microsoft part rather then real Open Source problems , there Open Source competition code being Open Source Microsoft know what the problem are and could fix them on is side if it decided it wanted to be really compatible.
Most people who have discussed this problem also forget the real reason that could sway them :
#1 No anti trust case can be made against an Open Source projects.
#2 No country can sue them for Anti-competitive behavior.
#3 NO tying laws are broken as everyone is welcome and encouraged to work on it and are not blocked from developing new product for it.
#4 You end up getting more free work and contribution then you actually put in. Witch can free your budget to target new development and harder parts to maintain.
For the moment Microsoft make more then they have to pay for there breaking the law globally , but eventually you will get a judge/governement who’s gonna put all there profit from there period of Microsoft breaking the law in jeopardy as punishment.
and these problems are Microsoft’s fault? Grow up. Poverty and lack of educational opportunities are very complex issues, and have been around since the dawn of time. Windows is just an operating system. So is Linux.
They are not ideological and sociological weapons, and MS didn’t colonize Africa in the 17th and 18th centuries and disrupt the future of billions. They didn’t overthrow the government and institute communism is countries all over the world. They don’t use slave labour, and they don’t invade countries for their oil.
The only real cause of those problems is people being people. Greedy, power hungry, nasty and oppressive.
Right, in other words, how will open sourcing the GPL make them more money, since money is really the only language that these companies understand.
The only problem is that, once they release it under the GPL, the value of the product immediately becomes $0 (since everybody could distribute it for free), so it would be rather hard to make that argument. The only thing they could really do at that point is sell support, which they probably do already
Edited 2009-01-13 22:33 UTC
In my opinion the only benefit to microsoft of opening the code would be being able to compete with linux directly at the very low end of the market
A £200 netbook with a £300 OS isnt that attractive….
Having a microsoft ‘free edition’ could compensate for that but would likly be heavily crippled in features. Maybe it would be OEM only and not retail?
Opening the code up could well open more cans of worms than they could justify (losing the revenue, potential security issues early on before the ‘community’ starts patching etc)
just, look at how long and how much trouble sun went thru for java? and really what did they gain? sure the java guys and OSS and yeah!!! but for sun? all the cash they spent doin it? what are they gaining?
(maybe a going out of biz party?)
MS has zero reason to open source windows, the onlys ones who think its even a remotely good idea are OSS zelots. really, what would MS gain? really? nothing…
those ISVs that need it can get it.
sure, there are things MS could do better. but as a *company* with shareholders. just giving away, 20+ years of code… just not a good idea…
and, there was come comments above about using linux etc:
use whatever is the best tools for the job. and many enterprise shops in the server room have many different OS’s running. but: on the desktop windows rules, with the exception of specialty stuff that requires Nix or OSX.
and, sure there are nix shops where this is not true…
-Nex6
Maybe I’m reading this differently, but Microsoft has always had a different way to involve other developers. They have always compatible binary interfaces and easy development tools. I have always found it infinitely easier to pump out a program using MS technologies than others. Heck, I even spent a fair amount of time with the old VB and it was a wonder to churn out small utility apps.
Linux and other open source initiatives then to invovle develops at the source level, which has a much higher barrier to entry; albeit with its own advantages.
I don’t particularly care about open source per say. However, if you don’t do open source, you better keep your binary interfaces nice so people can still get things done the way they want to. Windows 7 is supposedly doing a heck of a lot in terms of creating interfaces to various parts of Windows… especially management. If they can clean up and open up their interfaces and make it easy once again to program for Windows, it will be good for everyone.
Just like how Blizzard should open source World of Warcraft right? That would make them all kinds of money. Great business decision. Then they could be like all the other fat cat businesses running fully open source MMO’S.
Microsoft moving to an open source solution with Windows would be a dramatic change with regards to their business model. While Apple had a dramatic change with regards to the technology, it was not a change to their business model despite it helping their business.
I don’t really see any motivation for MS to make Windows Open Source. At this point, it makes no sense. Improving their code, as they ‘appear’ to be doing with Windows 7, will help them far better than making their OS open source. They ought to offer a good discount on Windows 7 for people who are upgrading from Vista. It will certainly salve people’s feelings over the whole affair.
The day when MS eventually does lose market dominance will certainly be interesting indeed.
Yes, the turkeys should vote for Christmas.
MSFT is becoming a web platform and hybrid-hardware (Xbox) company more and more so why not. If they did though they’d be better off just making a Linux distro. “Winux anyone?” Doing that would still allow us tinkerers to use any distro we wanted while allowing a large amount of software compatibility.
MS certainly doesn’t need to open source its OS. it could use OSS in the OS (like its old networking stack) as long as it keeps things compatible with the licence.
I find it interesting in the article that it mentions that Vista was not the train wreck for teh company that everyone says it was. I have been preaching that all along. If you want a good read check out the post (and following posts i made in comment to others), found in this thread. http://www.techspot.com/news/31153-windows-xp-still-outselling-vist…
It doesn’t look like an idea Microsoft is pursuing at this time and even if was it would take years to re-implement licensed code and clean it up for general consumption.
All you people making all these suggestions, like you will be heard. Laughable!
Most of the FOSS advocates here never took a business class I gather. Stallman love this FOSS thing because he has his cushy job at MIT that pays him well.
Microsoft is doing fine as it is, and will continue to do fine for decades to come.
If windows was open source the hackers would quickly make it work freely with open standards. The end of MS would come very soon after. Windows would probably thrive though.
No, imho the Open Source Community should not be made to go through the hell of cleaning up the garbage code that a multi-billion dollar company created. Microsoft should clean up their own shitte like everyone else.
Open sourcing Windows could solve a lot of problems, but probably none of Microsoft’s.
If anything that would likely break what as of now is the main pillar of their hegemony: lock-in.
To paraphrase: “We need open-source Windows the way a fish needs a bicycle!”
A new ECMA standard for WIN32 would be enough for now.