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."
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.
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*
Exactly, the outrageous profit margins Microsoft makes will allow it to make outrageous price concessions if a competitor ever does arise on the desktop.
But the problem for Microsoft is that it's basically a house of cards. Every other facet of Microsoft loses money other than Office and Windows. If either of those fail, the entire company would fail with it. That's why it is so desperate to do something different, e.g., Xbox, WebTV, WinCE, search, Windows Media Video 9/HD-DVD, etc. Thus, if Microsoft was forced to lower prices on Office/Windows, they'd have to start dumping all of their money losing areas to stay afloat.
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.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
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.
Catering to a lower common denominator in minimum system specs would make running the operating system far quicker on truly modern systems, but still usable on "obsolete" systems that are only 5-6 years old that would otherwise end up in a landfill.
I think this is a worthy goal.
I'm a big tall mofo.
When Red Hat earns that kind of profit, then Microsoft might switch.
Well, that will never happen then. The big money in Open Source is always going to be made through services rather than software. If Microsoft open sourced office and windows, they'd have to suddenly completely change their business model.
It would be a stupid idea business idea from anybody's perspective.
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.
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.
Microsoft will not hesitate to pull an Eolas, that's why they're patenting such garbage. They don't actually need to do that, they make their source availiable under NDA as shared source and levy patent licensing fees against open source projects to prevent them from being redistributed. Now that's what I call a "Microsoft tax" and anybody who had been paying attention over the last decade would be familiar with the Microsoft plan. Microsoft are not a charity, they are a borderline criminal monopoly.
Deal with it.
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".
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
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.