Slashdot Mirror
A Perspective on Microsoft's Shared Source
Masa writes "ONLamp has an insightful article by Stephen R. Walli about Microsoft Shared Source Initiative and some thoughts, what it would really mean if Microsoft would open-source their operating system.
The article gives a nice perspective on the Shared Source Initiative and what it is meant to be. It also shows that even if it might look that Microsoft doesn't understand the value of open source, there actually are some projects under the OSI-approved licenses, for example the WiX Toolset, which is a good example of a successful open source project by Microsoft."
Perspectives on the Shared Source Initiative
by Stephen R. Walli
03/24/2005
Nat Torkington and I were discussing Microsoft's Shared Source Initiative not long ago. I left Microsoft in early December and had spent the last three years directly involved in various aspects of Shared Source work. The more we discussed his questions, the more we realized others probably shared the same questions. This article came from that realization.
Microsoft began pushing the idea of "shared source" a few years ago as a way to talk about source code sharing exercises they continue to develop in the face of open source software practices. The idea holds the premise that they will share the source code of their software appropriately with appropriate audiences. Free and open source software was happening all around them. They were certainly thinking about the phenomena all the way back to the original Halloween document in October 1998. After talking to many of their customers, they discovered that many Windows developers did want access to read code and debug against it, but not necessarily modify the code. There was even an early university program for academic access, but this early program was not particularly popular. By Spring 2001, Microsoft needed to have an active position on the open source phenomena, and thus launched the Shared Source Initiative.
I will not discuss the past executive miscommunication and misconception, or the marketing rhetoric, but will look at what Shared Source is and some of the challenges open source presents to a large publicly traded company.
First, recognize that Shared Source isn't one program with one license. Shared Source is an umbrella program for all source sharing programs from Microsoft. Any time Microsoft makes source code available through a program, it brands it as part of the Shared Source Initiative, the marketing machine has the message to deliver, and a new program ends up on the Microsoft Shared Source website. These licenses span the spectrum from very locked down, look-but-don't-touch licenses to licenses approved by the OSI, and everything in between.
Most people imagine Shared Source as an avenue to open sourcing Microsoft's key product assets and are disappointed when they see restrictive licenses and difficult eligibility requirements. It's easy to assume that clearly Microsoft doesn't "get it" with open source, or more deliberately is generating confusion in the marketplace. Microsoft has a breadth of software assets and artifacts. The sharing program eligibility and licensing reflects the value of the software asset to shareholders. On one end of this software spectrum are the narrow-eligibility, high-liability programs around the Windows and Office core revenue generating assets (e.g. Government Security Program, Enterprise Source License Program, etc.) There is tightly controlled access to the code, with restrictions on what people can do with it (often read or debug or limited modification without redistribution rights). The penalties for license breach are high.
These restricted "sharing" programs are tied to the core revenue generating products for the company. (Take a look at the recent quarterly SEC filing. Go to the last page on revenues. Add Client plus Server and Tools and compare that to the total.) The responsibility of the executives to shareholders kicks in pretty quickly. They must take a worst-case, conservative view of the risks (brand damage, legal, revenue stagnation, engineering costs). They must have some form of hard data to support the premise that the more they open the source code base then the more revenue will grow. With these key revenue generating software assets, the company is essentially caught between the shareholders and customer base.
Opening Windows
Related Reading
Understanding Open Source and Free Software Licensing
Understanding Open Source and Free Software Licensing
By Andrew M. St. Laurent
Table of Contents
Index
Sample Chapter
Read Online--Saf
what it would really mean if Microsoft would open-source their operating system
it would be renamed to linux
:n
Microsoft Open Sources Windows, its a sign of the antichrist coming.
If Windows became open source we would see £100 knock down on the price of every single PC. This would then make more people buy PCs, which would help the whole industry except Microsoft. It would encourage growth in hardware and softcore could follow suite nicely.
But hey this is old Bill here, we all know Microsoft is the whole industry in his eyes (with a little brother called Intel). So hey he's not going to do this.
I like muppets.
The people at Microsoft aren't stupid. They completely understand open source. But, they also understand the value of a closed proprietary system. Microsoft earns 80% profit margins on Office and Windows. When Red Hat earns that kind of profit, then Microsoft might switch.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Microsoft are pushing for patents so they can open source their OS and kill the "open source" threat.
-captain obvious
I love how it mentions WiX. WiX has generated enormously good will for microsoft, at least with me.
I don't ever see them releasing all of windows open source, but just releasing small utilities like that open source for others to toy with is a HUGE step forward. Pretend that microsoft hadn't released WiX, and it stayed as time called it, insignificant. No one would have bothered with it except MCP's and others, and they would have used WinInstall LE or whatever.
But because microsoft released it free and OSS, an enormous buzz has been generated and an enormous amount of good will as well.
What I've imagined are thousands of developers worldwide working for years to cut bloat from the operating system eventually landing on a copy of Windows XP with all the relevant features that installs on a Pentium II with 64 megs of RAM on a 1 gig hard drive with plenty of room to spare.
Unfortunately there's a lot of effort and little to no profit to be had in reducing bloat; so for-profit companies rarely do it.
I'm a big tall mofo.
New World monkeys or Old World monkeys?
It also shows that even if it might look that Microsoft doesn't understand the value of open source,
When you say "value", you mean "potential massive loss of revenue", right? Microsoft are there to make a profit. Expecting them to adopt open source is like expecting Ayn Rand to rise from the grave clutching a copy of Das Kapital.
Slashdot: News for Nerds, Stuff that matters only to them
I wonder if the code behind start.com/1 is shared source. It has a nice javascript RSS reader I'd like to copy *cought*
I would no longer have to boot into windows to run the latest viruses and crippleware?
Steve is a great guy, and he did some wonderful stuff for Microsoft, and for the rest of us as well. Interix makes all the difference for me... it's like a shoulder-length rubber glove between me and the Win32 subsystem.
But maybe he doesn't quite appreciate the damage Microsoft has done to their reputation by bundling together true open source programs and traditional restricted source releases to customers under a single banner. It's confusing, and they should at least downplay it... they should separate out the truly Open Source components and make it clear that they do Get It, if only in little bits here and there.
And if they'd open-source Interix, whooo... it'd be like attaching a Jato unit to their public relations problem...
Seriously, WiX is Windows-specific. They've just given you one more way to tie yourself to windows.
They currently have a fully documented MSI Windows Installer file format. This is problematic because it's binary and isn't amenable to change. By moving to XML, they aren't making things less transparent, they're just making things easier for them to upgrade with stylesheets. It's a no-brainer to open source because it was already open.
Microsoft is not going to open their windows source. Remember Longhorn? they need to make bussiness with that first.
ajf
How would M$ make money at this? Before I get blasted the same kind of money they are making today. Open source is great, but aren't most of the posts anti establishment? Why is it bad to make money? If you don't like don't buy it. You can not ask a man who has been making money the same way for years to suddenly stop.
No this is nothing against Linux, I run Linux for certain applications and I run M$ for other applications. They are just tools. I always use the correct tool for the job.
My sigs offend the max # of people all over the world, regardless of race, religion, color, sex or creed. It's a gift.
Read that as "Open source is currently in, we need some of that".
I can't help thinking that someone considers WiX a casualty of war.
Do you see what I did there?
all this " feel-good-happy-sunshine day " stuff is fine, we can all envision our own utopias and see our children playing in wheat fields and whatnot, but the reality of the situation is that a marked paradigm shift would need to occur before microsoft truly embraces " open source " .
open source is not mutually exclusive to programmers and code . open source is the way of the future in terms of the thinking that it fosters: transparent, goal-oriented ( rather than profit-driven ) teamwork . nothing lasts forever, especially not behemoths the size of microsoft . eventually, a better path will be found .
it'd be like attaching a Jato unit to their public relations problem...
I understand what you were trying to say, but there are two small issues to consider:
JATO is an acronym for Jet Assisted Take Off and should be capitalized. It is used to help heavily loaded aircraft generate enough linear thrust (and thus lift) to take off on runways that would otherwise be too short. There is a neat picture here of a C-130 deploying a JATO.
Attaching an accelerating device to a problem just accelerates the problem (as in Interix's PR problem). No one likes a fast-moving problem. :-)
And just for fun, here is the link to the Snopes debunking of the alleged Darwin Award winner. The stories aren't true but perhaps they should be...
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
JATO is an acronym for Jet Assisted Take Off and should be capitalized.
My abject apologies.
Interix's PR problem
ITYM Microsoft's PR problem. Interix would be part of the solution, not part of the precipitate.
My abject apologies.
No apologies necessary - I'm just goofing around (and being a little pedantic, no doubt).
ITYM Microsoft's PR problem. Interix would be part of the solution, not part of the precipitate.
ITY are correct - my abject apologies to you.
(Bonus points for the chem reference...)
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
what it would really mean if Microsoft would open-source their operating system.
Anyone, anyone who has programmed any part of an operating system would laugh their arse off.
Microsoft has to file monthly reports with the SEC, detailing its profits and expenses. If the quarterly profit numbers change even a little bit, even if they are "lower than expected growth," the stock price can decline sharply.
If Bill Gates alone, or all the executives decided to switch to an open source model one day, I guarantee that even if the switch had yet to take place, the expense of starting such a project would have a large impact on profit, and may cause a stock price slip. Too large of a slip, and the board asks nasty questions. Don't forget, Microsoft only answers to Bill in the short term, anything longer than about three months puts the board and the stockholders in charge.
Stockholders like 80% profit margins.
Shared Source is meant to satisfy those that think that Open Source means it is more secure because people can view the source.
Dvorak on Doomtech
Here's what I'd really like to see: Microsoft opening/sharing/whatever the source code to the NT kernel. Just enough to build NTOSKRNL.EXE, NTDLL.DLL, and a couple of HALs (one UP, one MP). This would provide device driver developers with an enormously valuable resource. I suspect this would eventually lead to greater driver stability, as many of the "magic incantations" currently required would start to make more sense.
Also, releasing the kernel source would not enable sudden flood of Windows-wannnabes. Just as in the Linux world, "kernel source does not a distribution make".
share1 Audio pronunciation of "shared" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (shâr)
................
n.
1. A part or portion belonging to, distributed to, contributed by, or owed by a person or group.
2. An equitable portion: do one's share of the work.
3. Any of the equal parts into which the capital stock of a corporation or company is divided.
v. shared, sharing, shares
v. tr.
1. To divide and parcel out in shares; apportion.
2. To participate in, use, enjoy, or experience jointly or in turns.
3. To relate (a secret or experience, for example) to another or others.
4. To accord a share in (something) to another or others: shared her chocolate bar with a friend.
Don't microsoft mean Displayed Source initiative, as your not allowed to use all of it , Yes some is under OSI aproved licenses, though some of it effectivly puts your anatomy in a vice if you want to work on certain projects in the future.
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Because once making money goes above all other pursuits, it starts to damage the environment, the people, the animals, everyone.
Making money is not bad (it's a tool like anything else, a way to measure resources) but making it your god which justifies all means, that is bad.
Corporations have no soul and no social responsibility. If they could make lots of money by selling babies stolen from the birth ward and then beheaded, you can be 100% sure that's what would happen! "If you don't like, don't buy it" doesn't make a difference since the damage has already been done.
I'm sure these are among the reasons many people consider money and making money to be bad.
Sorry, no. As the previous poster said, you're talking about free software.
Excellent work being wrong. Back to your RMS hole.
This is a sticking point that people in the Windows camp don't seem to be able to get around.
1. "Linux" is just the kernel. I think that's what this guy was trying to say when he said that the Windows tree is not the Linux tree.
2. A mainstream "GNU/Linux distribution" like Mandrake, RedHat, Fedora, Novell or Debian is more akin to Microsoft Windows Professional + Microsoft Office + Microsoft Plus Pack + Window Blinds + Norton Internet Security + Roxio + [insert any brand of CD/DVD ripping software here] + Development tools + IIS + Microsoft SQL + Abobe Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro + Outlook. At least for a start.
So, if you are going to compare Microsoft Windows to a mainstream GNU/Linux distribution, you quickly see that the GNU/Linux tree is not the Windows tree as there is a whole lot more source code that does into your average distro and a lot of it is very tightly integrated. This is why it is pretty amazing that all the distros are really good about not just updating the basic "OS" code, but all the bundled apps as well. If Microsoft really released a Windows distribution with all the same functionality as a typical GNU/Linux distro, I have a feeling they'd have an even harder time keeping up security wise. It's interesting to note that the supposed independent studies of Linux vs. Windows always harp on how many more security updates that GNU/Linux distros put out than Microsoft does for Windows. They attack that claiming that there are far more security holes in the OS but still equate Windows as offering the same services with fewer patches needed. However, it quickly becomes obvious that since Windows provides such a small amount of functionality when compared to a GNU/Linux distro, they do not offer the same services. It's highly likely that if they did, their patchlist would rival all GNU/Linux distro's patch lists combined. :)
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Where are the 10 GHz CPUs we were supposed to have by now? What about a 5 GHz one? How long has the 3 GHz CPU been state-of-the-art?
The question is, what would Microsoft have to win or to loose from publishing part of its sources. And which part would they publish.
And if someone would like to distribute a modified version why not? You would still be required to have a license for Windows to run it.
Now, I would like to be able to change a few things in Windows (like everything except for the GUI). The actual core of the OS is not so great anyway.
(I wonder if ReiserFS is better than NTFS. Did anyone do any benchmarks? It might not be so easy to compare separate components of two OSes. I am inclined to think Reiser is better.)
(by the way, is it possible to change the FS of the partition Windows is booting from, even without having access to the source code? like studying the ddk and writing and replacing some dlls? )
Why don't they make sources public?
It's not like Windows works so well that everybody wanted to copy it.
I guess it's because once the sources become available there would be much easier to make a windows clone. WINE is getting closer anyway, but still has a lot to go.
And also, who would stop you from turning your Home edition into the Server one by replacing some components with third party ones (possibly free ones).
I think most people would buy and use the Official Windows Version anyway. It's a matter of psychology. Microsoft could then make agreements with third parties to include their changes in the official distribution. I think there are people that would contribute code for free only if they were given the chance to modify their windows.
about which parts they could open: It wouldn't make sense to publish the code for Office, but next to that I think the GUI they should be interested in keeping secret, because that's what they have best. They could make public the parts that don't really work well.
Maybe I misunderstood part of this person's argument (I skimmed through the article), but isn't he saying that part of the disadvantage of open sourcing Windows or OFfice would be a lack of stability. I don't buy that argument. Microsoft would still have the trademarks to Windows and Office and would be able to wield tremendous power in requiring certain aspects of the program to be work a certain way ala the idea for open sourcing Java. Any disadvantage in brand stability would be offset I believe by more than offset by increased product quality. Microsoft might have valid economic reasons not to open source Windows but I sure don't think that a lack of brand stability should be one of them.
Various data are kept in an
dismay at what an obfuscated object model MS Word presents
admiration for the VBA enviornment for creating such a silk purse out of this sow's ear.
So, in addition to tidying the operating system (or at least producing well documented test cases showing WTF), we could also expect to see gradual creation of wrapper classes that would un-bork a lot of this ugliness. I'm envisioniong http://ms_office_space.sourceforge.net, or something, as an umbrella project for libraries that are as 'easy' to use as VBA, but are in a language we can use without negative impact to our self-esteem.
That will be enough wishful thinking for now, Chris; back to work.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
When I look at Microsoft that way, I think of the first Predator movie, with the well armed troops, shooting around at random, and hitting nothing.
Poncho: Nowhere, not a fucking trace, no blood, no bodies, we hit nothing!
The more you know, the less you need. [Admin added: from me.]
In your brain-dead model of processors and computers they are only on desktops.
Suppose the Government decides to place monitoring statins along the border with Mexico and they place, say, 10,000 of these at the cost of, say, 10,000 dollars a piece. So that is 100 million dollars.
and then a few years in to this some flaw is discovered in the code. The solution is to upgrade the operating systems of these nodes.
In your model they must replace the processors and motherboards.
Capital equipment and infrastructure must have an upgrade path. Also it should be expected to last more than ten years. Why? Otherwise it is just a big fat boondoggle.
M$ is a toy operating system and no serious captial equipment designer should even consider it. It is crap, insecure, and actually dangerous for our security. That is why there is such a push to not use it anymore.
But the M$ people have so much damn money that they get their stuff approved because so many people have thier stock.
hope you have that patched XP or else your machine is probably a drone owned by some eastern europoean script kiddie.
Oh, and by the way, the cost of computer is also the cost of installing and running the computer. So if we are talking about capital equipment we want an operating system that is easy to install and upgrade. That is not the M$ one.
No. Anti-monopoly.
Do you realize how much a spurious upgrade like the transition between the Dos 3 and Dos 4 cost the United States Military?
Those thieves in Redmond were bleeding the government as fast as they could.
M$ is a parasite and they are the true anti-establishment people.
People work on open source because they don't want the future to be owned by trust fund brats who live off-shore and rule the world from their inherited spleder outside of any accountability.
I spent my life learning computers only to be told that since I am not a brown-skined Indian upper-caste that I can't have a software job anymore because I am too expensive.
But, hey, why do you need the people to be employed as long as you live in a walled community on an off-shore Island?
M$ contributes to instability by creating a have and have-not class of people.
WiX is a developer tool. Developer tools and their impact as open source is not comparable to user tools like Office.
Unless they also gave out GPL compatible royalty free and nondiscriminatory licences to their entire patent pool, and that isn't goign to happen. MS Shared source is good for people that make kernel modules for Windows and sponsored researchers much like Sun's CDDL. Other than that it is much ado about nothing since you don't have a license to redistribute the derivative work.
I find it hard to see that Microsoft's license would be any more liberal than the one that Sun have used to open up Solaris 10.
"Sure you can look at it, but you can't use it without relicensing your code under our license. And if we find our code in any of your work we'll sue you. "
... That could never happen and you bloody well know it. Microsoft are there to make a profit and control the monopoly they have.
I like analogies, so one could say that Microsoft opening up the Windows source code would be like Playboy printing articles and no more pictures.
Re: Stock price slip on MS moving to Open Source
Can you say "Class-action Shareholders Lawsuits?"
I knew that you could
Why would you spend your valuable time (unless it's invaluable to you... translation: time is money) researching and developing software which fits a niche, but give it away for absolutely free, on the hope that support will sustain your continuning R&D?
To the consumer, it's a great choice. But to any entrepreneurial developers out there whose time has provided food and shelter to their families, why would you ever decide to offer your software for free?
I've become so fed-up with the absurdity of the open-source movement, and how people claim everything should be open-source. Sure, that would work if life itself wasn't an expense. Living costs money, and any open-source supporter who thinks that offering their time and services for free will reap enough revenue to support a family and a decent life must be losing their minds.
If you offer up a good product, people will pay good money -- this applies to Windows. As much as the majority of Slashdot is against Windows and Microsoft, the fact remainins it IS a very good product. That's the bottom line.
I'll never offer my software or services for free, because my time is worth something to me. If I were to open source my work, then I'd sooner travel the world and spend money, then work my ass off and give it away for free.
To keep this on topic: I hope Microsoft never goes in the open-source direction. Open source is doomed, but people are too busy gagging themselves on the thought that it's free.
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
A significant portion of the world's population earns very little so $179 to them is an absolure fortune. Take Madagascar for instance. The per capita income per year is approx $200. Yes two hundred dollars a year. Most ofthe population for not have access to Electricity, Sewerage or clean drinking water. We in thr west take all these for granted.
When I visited (for the 5th time) last november, I gave a gross of pencils to a school way out in the country. They were overjoyed. I had saved them lots of money.
I visited a few internet cafe's. Most were running Win98 on 64Mb PII's. They were riddled with virii. I gave one operator copies of Spybot etc so he could clean up his systems. I got an email before christmas thanking me for my help.
So, the request for XP+SP2 to run on "Ancient H/W" is perfectly valid. Get rid of the bloat!
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
lol! I completely agree with you.
And you're one of the first people on here that actually realises the real "value" of open source or linux.
linux sucks, accept it.
I don't think that it would be wise for Microsoft to Open Source its software.
Microsoft has suggested that opening its code to the world would be catastrophic, that open code means more likelihood of security breaches, and that security through obscurity is the best way to go.
We see plenty of popular Open Source software, and access to its source code hasn't been catastrophic. It's obvious by now that Open Source itself isn't a security concern.
Besides, it's funny that Microsoft is putting faith in security through obscurity, when crackers have been successfully exploiting Microsoft's software for years, even though they can't see the source code...
With Open Source software, ensuring that the code is secure has had to be of high concern from the start - there is no security through obscurity. But Microsoft software was not developed with security in mind (as Microsoft itself has admitted - not that it needed to), and opening its millions of lines of flawed code to crackers could indeed be catastrophic.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
Just in case you were wondering why "WiX" is not going to be terribly popular in German speaking countries, imagine an SAP-release of a "jerkov"-module.
"wi{x|chs}en" in German means "to jerk-off"
Although it could gain the company a level of trust and support that it greatly needs, Microsoft would lose money by Open Sourcing Windows.
Microsoft currently locks people into its products via proprietary APIs, file formats, and protocols.
Microsoft is touting 'integration' as being a major bonus of using its software - something that the competition has been locked out of.
Microsoft is relying on money generated by upgrades to maintain its cash flow, upgrades of Microsoft Office being one of the main sources of income. If the competition becomes compatible, and can offer the same level of integration, Microsoft has lost its 'strangle-hold'.
Open Source is not good for Microsoft's cash-cows, and is totally against Microsoft's profitable business model.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
You've hit the nail on the head: Microsoft shares source as a PR move. They throw out what is really a few miniscule token gestures, but it generates a lot of goodwill, and makes people think they're not so bad after all. They're really just manipulating your view of them.
MS also takes a bit of flak for keeping their source closed, and also some clients attempt to use OSS as a bargaining chip to drive down the price they get from MS. Also some clients DO value software being OS. Thus Microsoft also wants such clients to think that they are "moving in the direction of" OSS, i.e. they want you to think that they are "moving towards" OpenSourcing Windows etc., so that you perceive buying into Windows now as less of a risk, thinking that at some point in the future this product would possibly be opened. But Microsoft will never, ever open Windows or Office. It will never happen, because it would allow a bunch of competitors to spring up with Windows-compatible platforms and Office-format-compatible office suites, which would force MS to slash their margins. Their proprietary formats and platforms are the bedrock of their monopoly. They're not stupid.
Under this "pseudo/pretend" "open" strategy, Microsoft intend to simply forever be in this perpetual state of "moving towards OpenSource" .. it may look like they are 'moving', but they will never reach the destination, and they know it.
Our ntoskrnl and hal is a close as you are going to get without having to sign a NDA for life.
Why clone Unix when I can clone Windows instead. http://www.reactos.org
seriously
From the article:
They can't afford the risk to the brand of instability (or the perception of instability) of the Windows or Office products with their enterprise customers.
Funny. It was Microsoft's IE's closed-source that led to the hundreds of viruses, worms and whatnot that stained Microsoft's reputation...
Of course, open sourcing Windows would be simply mad. But what about IE? Or the WORD DOC and Excel formats?
What's wrong with this picture?
For the clueless, let me explain something to you.
Bill Gates cares about one thing and one thing ONLY: money. And he is FAR too greedy to see any way he can make the same money he is making now from open source. As I've said before, there is NO WAY Bill Gates will ever change his stance on this - EVEN if somebody could show him how to make MORE money from OSS. He's too big an asshole.
ANY discussion of Microsoft doing open source is so ridiculous as to belong on the funny pages.
Period.
End of story.
'Nuff said.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
I agree. I never expected MS to open source Windows or Office; that would, indeed, make we propose an expedition to Hell with thermometers.
BUT... Why not open source VB6? And anything else they want to EOL. That would gain them a ton of (sometimes grudging) street cred in the OSS community.
And make a *lot* of people happy, including some who are rather unhappy today.
NOT open source windows. (for the obvious reasons already mentioned).
:)
What they SHOULD do is to Open Source some of the userland components of windows. (such as Internet Explorer)
By then taking the good patches back from the community, they get a better product without giving away the keys to the kingdom or hurting windows sales.
Although if ReactOS ever gets to a point where it is usable for joe average, Microsoft better watch out...
> Microsoft opening up the Windows source code would
> be like Playboy printing articles and no more
> pictures.
A better analogy would be Playboy dispensing with the printing of photos, and instead just sending you the negatives so you could make as many of your own prints as you liked.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.