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."
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.
Why would Windows being open source make PCs less expensive? Open source != free.
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
Look at your post.
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.
Microsoft isn't going to do anything that won't help Microsoft. They have an obligation to shareholders to increase profits and market share (dominating as they are). Of course, this is only the case with their current business model.
Now, if they switched to a service contract type business model and open sourced Windows, things might be different. Think of those people that still have Windows 98. What if they had been paying, say, $10-$15 a year since then for support? Microsoft would have made more on them than the customer's initial purchase of Windows (assuming an OEM installed Windows, not Retail).
The customer doesn't have to get support, but lots of people pirate Windows anyway. Might as well release it to everyone and work on *really* good tech support.
Maybe I'm simplifying things too much. I'm sure someone will correct me.
Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
How would M$ 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.
I put together two Postfix servers at work, one running on a classic Pentium 233mhz and the other on a Pentium II 266mhz. Both are running 2.4.x kernels, both have only 128mb of RAM, and both are handling hundreds of thousands of messages a day. I could probably get away with NT4, but of course, I can't get Postfix to run on them. Windows is hugely bloated and each new version sees this kind of hardware slide off the edge. Linux has given at least five old machines I've worked with new life. A minimal install of something like Slack can be used to make even a classic Pentium a router/firewall.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.