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."

Comments

MS DOES understand the value of open source

[Anita Coney]

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.

Re:Imagining Windows as Open Source

[bigtallmofo]

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.

Philanthropy?

[Broiler]

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.

Not Necessarily Correct

[eno2001]

The Windows tree is not the Linux tree. The Windows tree is akin to an entire mainstream Linux distribution, except with a tightly integrated code base.

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. :)