Slashdot Mirror
MS To Become Open Source Friendly Post Gates
ruphus13 writes "Now that Gates has 'retired' from Microsoft, ZDNet is speculating that Microsoft will become much more Open Source friendly. From the article, 'We already see quite a different approach to dealing with OSS and OSS companies from Sam Ramji's group [which is] doing a great job in establishing dialog,' said Rafael Laguna, CEO of Open-Xchange and a former marketing exec at SUSE Linux. 'With Gates' departure, the only mammoth remaining is Ballmer. With him away in a near future, Microsoft will definitely open up. They have to.'" Microsoft could become the world's largest open source company; they've certainly made some concessions to it lately.
It's a little soon (or late depending) but Where are my ponies?
Nazis to become Pro-Jew post Hitler.
Christians to become Pro-Reason post Apocalypse.
KKK to become Pro-Black post Hanging.
I have to wonder if the complexity of modern software is part of the big reason driving OSS, it would seem to me as our systems get faster, we can increase the complexity of our programs ad infintum, and at some point it 'breaks the camels back' and no business can hope to maintain something so large and unwieldy.
I'll believe it when I see it and not a moment before. With Microsoft's record anything short of unequivocal action should be treated with absolute scepticism.
Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
Ha ha ha ha
...
Ha ha ha ha
(catches breath)
Ha ha ha
If you believe this, I have a great price on a bridge for you. Anyone working on Open Source should watch carefully for the knife aimed at your back, as the "friendly" MS squirms up to you waving an olive branch of peace.
is if Ballmer and the Gates people are no longer at the top. And that ain't gonna happen.
This just means captured FOSS advocates won't be tortured before being executed.
the term, FUD originated with IBM, not Microsoft.
so i won't say it can't happen, but i'm not holding my breath either
They are always becoming friendlier but somehow never quit the full frontal assault. Their arsenal includes a full spectrum of technical sabotage, PR, legal threats on top of ordinary competition. If this is a joke, I'm tired of hearing it.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Is Balmer still there? Then I say BS.
i would just love the day when i can just go to an MS website click a link download windows and be installing it when in minutes with out spending a dime.
it could happen and very like will here's how:
Microsoft has its fingers is A-LOT of things (X box, Zune, Internet Services) just cut one of them off:
Windows, windows should be open source just the OS that way with proper guidance from the whole things like security bug ans flaws in the code will be ironed out in no time.
its other applications could be rolled into its internet services (see google docs). and then Windows would be separate from MS and, MS could go about making money and forget about the OS market which is too unstable and Unwieldy. they like to say that they'll support there software LOL yea right if your pay extra and that ISN'T support
support wouldn't be needed if there wouldn't be problems with your software and there wouldn't be problems if every one could just look at it and fix it.
Also if JUST windows the OS and only the OS was made open source they could say goodbye to the Department of Justice for good and there anti-trust lawsuit woes would be over. Its kinda hard to have a monopoly when your not REALLY making money from it. (donations wouldn't count, but heck they probably wouldn't get one for awhile as many peeps as they have pissed off heh)
Also pirates would become a non-issue when your just giving away your stuff for free they won't be pirates any more.
I have one requests of Sam Ramji PLEASE make this world a better place and make your life much easier by spinning off the Windows OS into an open source organization, please.
P.S. There is a reason why Firefox stomps IE and That's because WE made it good - Windows can be good too if you let us (the end users) make it that way
... Microsoft _could_ become the world's largest open-source company...
... Apple _could_ become the world's largest producer of low-cost laptops...
... China _could_ become the world's largest anarchy (by population) ...
... Jupiter _could_ turn out to be the solar system's second Sun...
... Hell _could_ freeze over...
Ballmer has a severe case of verbal diarrhea, so we know how he feels about open source software. "Open source is a cancer...", "Linux infringes on over 200 Microsoft patents" (as-yet undisclosed patents, I might add). I can only see Microsoft going Open Source when they finally glue Ballmer's hand to a chair. Then he'll follow it out the window when he throws it.
Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
Gates is out; they are half way there. The other half will take care of itself.
Ballmer will be toast unless he gets Yahoo at a fire sale price. As it stands today, he probably won't get it at all. The solution will be to force the deal by overpaying. Not that I have any sympathy for the guy, but he is being set up to fail.
I will believe it when I see it, with microsoft's track record during its entire existence I wont hold my breath, respect and trust is something that must be earned and not given out like halloween candy, lets see them actually change = not with lip service and press-release/FUD, I want to see real change...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
How many would actually embrace an open source Windows, extend the code, and extinguish the bugs?
why would MS open source their software? If they open source it that means it can be ported and people will be more likely to leaving windows if they can use their windows apps on another operating system. Open source code does nothing to benefit MS especially when 99.99% of their customers don't even know what source code is. Sure it would be nice, but I just don't think it stands a snowballs chance in hell.
Microsoft embracing open source would allow it to hurt them in the short term too. Remember how tolerable XP was? Well open source hacker A has made XP no longer need online registration. XP is free now! So is every Microsoft product. Maybe if the first hack everyone did wasn't to make the software free, companies may think about open sourcing their software to get a superior product in the long term. And you know what the second hack would be: Halo 3 cheats. With the whole code open to look through, cheating video games gets easy.
God spoke to me.
That was the sound of millions of chairs crying out... and being suddenly silenced.
Because with their CEO, Steve Ballmer, calling OSS cancer, I can really see Gates's departure as allowing the company to become more involved in OSS. Involved in trying to derail it, perhaps.
I hear Ballmer is really into poniez.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Microsoft would first have to get over its "Not Invented Here" syndrome. One of the things that has driven Microsoft to try and achieve domination over all things software is the belief that everything they shit out is GOLD, they can do it better than everyone else, and the other guys's stuff is crap and deserves to fail. They pretty much believe that they're the center of the computing universe. Opening up and embracing FOSS would mean that other people are LOOKING AT and TOUCHING their code, submitting PATCHES, who do these people THINK they ARE?! This is high-quality Microsoft code, mister! Keep your grubby hands off of it! Oh god, I feel so unclean, the stink won't come off!!
Microsoft could give each open source developer a wheel barrow filled with gold and they would bitch about having to push it to the car. Why does anyone post any MS related article on /.? I just love it when MS is compared to the Nazi party and Bill Gates is called Hitler. It is as clear an indication as any just how out of touch the Open Source community is. Hitler murdered over 6 million people and Bill Gates ran a software company...? I am not seeing the comparison.
It's a trap!
Let's see - at this point we've got 20 comments that basically say "we don't believe anything Microsoft says" and one guy that's still sucking his thumb. I think maybe the majority have a valid point here...
My point was that Ballmer obviously set up people he trusted below him. And you know how this goes.
Bill Gates has left the campus but he still owns a large number of shares. About 857,499,336, says Yahoo Finance.
Microsaur stock is still a good value with over 80% of the market using its products. The shareholders are not interested in ideals that don't create stock value.
El Presidente Generalisimo Lanzero de SillÃnes Ballmero (408,252,990 shares) represents these people. He's the kind of leader that the shareholders want... They just wish he wasn't such an embarrassment. (As erratic and blustery as Khrushchev, but dances like a monkey instead of banging his shoe on the table.)
If the company can cut costs by having individual software enthusiasts give away bug fixes to Microsaur on the company's terms, of course they will do that... and call it "open source".
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
If he's gone, we can see what happens. Until then, no, its not going to happen as they are still at war with everyone else on the software planet. Especially OSS.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
From the article: "... the only mammoth remaining is Ballmer."
You can certainly tell the mindset of the article author, Paula Rooney, and the person who was quoted, Rafael Laguna. Their idea is that it is entirely acceptable and useful to call Ballmer a "mammoth". As in "woolly mammoth" who will go extinct soon, I suppose.
It makes a far better contribution toward showing why Microsoft's management policies should be disrespected if there is some logical substance to what is said.
In my opinion, both Gates and Ballmer make money by being aggressive. That's what they know. That's how Microsoft has made most of its money, by taking advantage of the fact that most of the customers 13 years ago had little understanding of the computer systems they used. They established closed file formats. The managed using the policy of "embrace, extend, extinguish".
Their business management emphasis is away from making money by contributing something positive. For example, Windows Vista is little more than another version of Windows XP that has been modified to require more CPU power so that Microsoft's principal customers, the manufacturers, will be able to sell more powerful computers.
Quote from the parent: "Oh right, after rigging the ISO process with OOXML and their triumph over open standards they're going to go open source?"
MOD PARENT UP!
'There is no doubt that Microsoft has no choice but to acknowledge that the closed development model for building software doesn't work any more.'
Their reasoning is circular. It will happen because it will happen and they have no choice but to acknowledge it.
An incredibly flimsy argument at best.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
I for one welcome our new evil Open Source friendly Microsoft overlords.
Of course I didn't RTFA... why would I do that? You really are new here aren't you? Don't let my UID fool you.
I think Microsoft will end up announcing that Vista will be free for non-commercial use.
They wont release the source code but Windows will end up being free. They spread enough FUD that it wouldn't be hard to to convince a lot of people that free=open source. But better than open source because you don't have to set-up complex compilers and development environments you just need the binaries (yes i know but its FUD remember). Better because it stops someone inserting malicious code into the source.. the usual FUD.
They sell Windows to schools so cheap just to stop Linux getting much of a foothold anyway that giving it away wont make that much difference. They'll still charge for Vista Ultimate/Pro/Uber-bloat or whatever its called but tie it in with online services.. for a small monthly fee. Vista for free and get Office/their gaming gaming thing/online media services for $15 per month.
I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
I feel like Microsoft has taken some important steps towards playing nice with Open Source, and encouraging interoperability. Some examples include projects like IronPython, the WIX Installer tools, the fact that Silverlight actually supports at least one non-Windows platform, and the extremely detailed communications protocol documents recently released on MSDN. Sure, part of this has been for legal compliance reasons, and it turns out customers value things like interoperability.
I think there's a subtler reason that will become more apparent in the coming years. Microsoft needs to hire new employees if it wants to stay relevant, and it competes with the likes of Google and others for these new hires. It also happens that probably the very best college candidates are the ones that have contributed to open source projects. These are the students that went beyond what their curriculum required of them, and showed the drive to understand and contribute to a real-world project on their spare time. This kind of experience is valuable in a new hire, but many of them would be turned off by an anti open source attitude and look for more open source-friendly employers. In other words, to attract the best young minds (which is crucial to Microsoft's long term success), Microsoft is going to have to become much more friendly to open source projects.
Working on Linux?
I'm just not seeing Ballmer as being actually qualified for the job. When he was put in place, I really thought it was a temporary measure to try to strong-arm internal departments through bullying. them, but he's been in place so long that I'm either completely underestimating him, or someone has plans for him that are yet to come to fruition.
Check out my sysadmin blog!
They are not to be trusted. Proof? Bob.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
In theory, M$ Office has support for Word Perfect. In reality, M$ Office does not support M$ Office and this is why OOXML is such a mess. The kind of support they are talking about is just another weapon to them. The sum of their anti-competitive efforts against others is something that does not work for their own customers.
IBM, Sun and others have made real moves to free software. M$ does not have the technical expertise or confidence to do the same. As Steve Ballmer said back in 1995:
You can translate that as they don't care if something does not work for you and you don't want it, they are going to shove it on you anyway. There's nothing new here and no change should be expected.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
"If Microsoft ever does applications for Linux it means I've won." â" Linus Torvalds
MS has to get away from code as product altogether. No one cares what's open and what's not in the business market world. Look to MS to buy Amazon or eBay.
To sum all up of the above sarcasm, cynicism, ranting, etc: Wishful thinking.
Slightly off topic, but with the expectation that MS will become more open source friendly, who will be the next boogeyman here on /.?
... it really has nothing to do with Gates moving on, MS learning how to understand OSS and work with it has been happening for a while.
http://osrin.net/2008/06/im-a-believer/
Green envy and spam
With apologies to Dr "Suse", to the tune of "Green Eggs and Ham".
Linux can. Linux can. Use Linux.
That Linux can! That Linux can! I do not like that Linux can!
Do you like open sourcing plan?
I do not like that Linux can. I do not like the open sourcing plan.
Would you like to free source share?
I would not like to free source share. I would not like it anywhere. I do not like open sourcing plan. I do not like that Linux can.
Would you like it very stable? Would you like it to enable?
I do not like it very stable. I do not like it to enable. I do not like to free source share. I do not like it anywhere. I do not like the open sourcing plan. I do not like that Linux can.
Would you use it in a X-Box? Would you use it if it ROCKS?
Not on X-box. Not if it rocks. Not if very stable. Not to enable. I would not let them free source share. I would not let them anywhere. I would not allow open sourcing plan. I do not like that Linux can.
Would you? Could you? In your biz? Use it! Use it! Here it is.
I would not, could not, in our biz.
You may like it. You will see. You may like it if it's free!
I would not, could not if its free. Not in our biz! It should never be!
I do not like it on the X-box. I do not like it that it rocks. I do not like it amongst our biz. I do not like it that it is. I do not like they free source share. I do not like that anywhere. I do not like that Linux can. I do not like you Linux man!
service! service! service! service! Could you, would you, as a service?
Not as a service! Not if it's free! Not in my biz! Man! Let not it be! I would not, could not, on a X-box. I could not, would not, if it rocks. I will not use it if its stable. I will not use it even to enable. I will not let them free source share. I will not let them anywhere. I do not like open sourcing plan. I do not like that Linux can.
Say! if in copyleft? always free copyleft! Would you, could you, copyleft?
I would not, could not, in copyleft.
Would you, could you, why so nervous?
I would not, could not, I'm NOT nervous. Not as copyleft. Not as a service. Not in my biz. Not if it's free. I do not like that it can, you see. Not if it's stable. Not on X-box. Not to enable. Not if it rocks. I will not let them free source share. I do not like it anywhere!
You do not like open sourcing plan?
I do not like that Linux can.
Could you, would you use what we wrote?
I would not, could not, use what you wrote!
Would you, could you, to avoid your bloat?
I could not, would not, avoid bloat. I will not, will not, use what you wrote. I will not compete with them as a service. I will not because it makes us nervous. Not in our biz! Not if it's free! Not if it is! You let me be! I do not like it on the X-Box. I do not like it that it Rocks. I will not use it if it's stable. I do not like that it does enable. I do not like they free source share. I do not like it ANYWHERE I do not like open sourcing plan!I do not like that, Linux can.
You do not like it. So you say. Try it! Try it! And you may. Try it and you may, I say.
Man! If you will let me be, I will try it. You will see.
Say! I like open sourcing plan! I do! I like that, Linux can! And I would use it because it's stable. And I could use it to enable...
And I could charge for providing a service. And I could copyleft without being nervous. And in my biz. And still source free. For you can still charge for a service fee!
So I will use it on the networked X-box. And I will promote it because it ROCKS. And I will use it because it's stable. And I will use it to enable.
And I will use it here and there. Say! I can use it ANYWHERE!
I do so like open sourcing plan! Thank you! Thank you, Linux man!
By The Cat with the Red Hat
They will certainly have to adopt the open source business model and make money by selling low margin services without any moat or competitive advantage, instead of selling highly demanded software programs on which they have a monopoly with obscene operatring margins. If they do it right, one day they will make as much money as Red Hat! http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=RHT&annual Hey, wait, they ARE making as much money in one day as red hat makes (in a year)!
This has to be the most idiotic response I've ever read.
More open-source friendly? Let me know when I can buy an open-source xbox360 with custom firmware so I can run linux on it.
Thanks!
Cuz we all know that Bill Gates was at the forefront, standing fast on the thin red line between Microsoft and the open source hordes. Now that he's out of the way, I'm sure there'll be no other obstacles.
Stasis is death. Embrace change.
Wanna see something funny?
hardware specs page.....
rriiiiiiggghhhhtttt clearly open source. we'll know exactly how to use this.
That's Internet Bubble talk.
There's still no definitive evidence that there's a viable business model in an open source, software only company.
Most profitable "open source" companies are in the closed hardware business and just use Linux inside.
It's still an open question whether traditional companies who buy open source companies like MySQL will ever see their investment pay off. What is the balance sheet for Sun with respect to Star/Open Office?
If you had inside information that MS was going to make all their products open source, that would be a great time to sell the stock short.
It depends on your definition of "thriving". Without Wintel (or some other standard platform), most of us couldn't even afford a computer.
Obviously Crays and Connection Machines were never going to be home computers.
Although the design legacy of the x86 still sucks today, their really isn't a microprocessor significantly faster. Also keep in mind that Windows NT ran on the Alpha as well as x86 and the marketplace couldn't care less.
"Remember, the user experience is irrelevant to management, it's all about lock-in and unfair competition."
Sure, all the money they spent on usability studies for Windows 95 was just for show.
"If it was about making a better product, Vista would still be in development."
And you'd be saying that Vista was vaporware.
Resurrected Hitler has in fact made clear that he is now "down" with the Jews
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
"They spread enough FUD that it wouldn't be hard to to convince a lot of people that free=open source"
RMS already confused the issue by calling his open source projects "free".
Have you even used WiX? It's an absolute turd.
I use it in my day job at Microsoft. I'm not allowed to fix its problems on the clock, so bugger if I'm going to fix it for them off the clock.
they will hang onto their monopoly as long as possible.
So there's actually very little of the company whose business model is compatible with open source licensing. That's where you'll see change, if it happens -- not in Bill Gates leaving Microsoft.
Actually, Microsoft is quite compatible with open source. There is a lot of open source built right into the OS. The integration of data with internet programs has allowed for the open sourcing of your address books, and vulnerabilities in the mail and web clients have led to the open sourcing of plenty of personal data.
This just means they're buying some NetGear wireless routers.
If Microsoft becomes open source, I will eat my hat.
Certainly, I know I'm planning to announce a new (admittedly minor) Microsoft Open Source initiative at the O'Reilly Open Source Conference this year...
But I can't talk about it yet (sorry) until after I've been to Redmond to get my implant :(
Jews become compassionate and caring about someone else's suffering but their own.
But of course, you wont, you previsible like scared monnkey.
Jews will sue your ass and muslims will kill your infidel ass so cowards like you know which way the wind blows.
Fear of making fun a group of morons who believe in the tooth fairy isnt fair game? Really?
The 'chosen' people isnt enough of a group delusion to make fun off?
Gotta learn to walk before you run.
Without Wintel, most of us couldn't even afford a computer!?!?
You do know that there were plenty of affordable, powerful (for the time) computers before they got squeezed out by Wintel, right? Amiga ring any bells? Atari ST? MacOS?
Computers became affordable due to Moores Law. Don't kid yourself that Gates and Co. had much to do with that. If anything their bloatware kept the cost of a computer that could run current apps *more* expensive than it should have been.
Emphasis mine.
Given Microsoft's scathing history, including its tendency to promise lots of wonderful things it never delivers, I'll believe it when I've seen it happen for a few years. Microsoft has a lot to apologize for, and I certainly wouldn't be making any concessions for them for at least the next 5-10 years.
This is not the time to be giving MS representatives positions on the boards of say, the Free Software Foundation or the Open Source Initiative.
Microsoft is not a leader in the world of free and open-source software. It is a latecomer---a very late comer. Having a large pile of money doesn't change that, and it's perfectly reasonable to ask Microsoft to prove itself over the course of years before it is to be trusted.
Microsoft could just as easily be using Gates' departure as yet another opportunity to try to fool us all. If that's true, I hope people don't fall for it.
It did, however, answer your point:
There's no evidence of change
It's not conclusive evidence, but it is evidence.
Also:
Well, they'd need to move to an OSS compatible business model for starters but right now they're still mostly about selling boxes of software.
Seems to me they get much of their money from hardware vendors (like Dell) and from large corporations (volume licenses). How many people do you know who've actually bought a boxed copy of Windows?
And because of that, it seems like neither of those customers would stop buying from them if their product could be had for free. After all, Dell pays Canonical for support...
Just guessing... maybe the secret is that Microsoft doesn't actually offer any support?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I said this before and I'm sure that I got modded an idiot or something, but...
I think Windows 7 is BSD based. Look, Vista crashed and burned with everything. It's buggy, has crap for drivers support and they've known this for ages, I mean, it was two or three years behind schedule? Meanwhile Apple built an excellent BSD-based OS and wins approval from everyone. Don't believe for a second that Microsoft hasn't been watching. I think they see where BSD is the strong backbone and that Apple basically poached a lot of the Gnome interface (rebuilt for ergonomics, etc). It would not surprise me at all that Windows 7 follows much the same pattern except that the GUI will follow Vista/KDE much more. And because Microsoft will not have to worry about the backend they can concentrate on the GUI and the drivers and be able to turn it around for early 2009.
That is my opinion. I would like to see differing opinions on this, actually.
I call it 'The Aristocrats'
"You do know that there were plenty of affordable, powerful (for the time) computers before they got squeezed out by Wintel, right? Amiga ring any bells? Atari ST? MacOS?"
The Mac of course, had its own niche and was orginally marketed as the "computer for the rest of us" which didn't position it well for corporate use.
The Amiga and Atari ST had some definite potential, but suffered from the shaky condition of the companies that produced them (ironically the Amiga was really a 3rd generation Atari design and the ST a 3rd generation Commodore design).
"Computers became affordable due to Moores Law."
Moore's Law is not about cost, but performance. Although prices dropped significantly after PC clones were introduced, the average cost of a PC hasn't changed that much over the years - just their computing power.
Oops :P
Anybody who talks about "an approach for dealing with open source" is never going to be open source friendly. Companies are open source friendly if they see an intrinsic benefit in using and supporting open source software, and if they see it as an opportunity to save money and outsource costly development. Companies that think of open source software as a threat to be dealt with will never succeed with open source.
Yes, Microsoft can come world biggest open source company, but it will never come world biggest free software company.
Open Source and Free Software are two different things and Gates is again talkin only about Openess, not about Freedom.
Even that Microsoft has license what has aproofed on FSF, it does not mean that MS would use those.
A new record for Godwin's Law?
are Ballmers words, not Gaes. So, no, Microsoft will not become more FOSS friendly.
Microsoft will probably go the same way Apple went after Jobs left... both companies are very much defined by their front figure.
It is as clear an indication as any just how out of touch the Open Source community is. Hitler murdered over 6 million people and Bill Gates ran a software company...? I am not seeing the comparison.
I'm not either. I don't see any comparison between Microsoft and the Nazis in the post you are responding to. So, spare us the righteous indignation.
Why does anyone post any MS related article on /.?
There are plenty of MS related articles, they just happen to be almost all negative. Why? Because that's what reflects what the company is about.
Microsoft has been behaving extremely badly towards users, the open source community, and business partners. They are convicted monopolists. They have subverted and corrupted the ISO standardization process and ISO itself simply to gain some marketing points. People like Ballmer are ruthless foulmouths. And Microsoft's software is responsible for almost all the viruses, malware, and security problems on the planet.
People have excellent justification to dislike Microsoft strongly and to not believe anything the company says.
Microsoft could give each open source developer a wheel barrow filled with gold and they would bitch about having to push it to the car.
Perhaps. But that's because so far, all MS have given open source developers and users are wheel barrows full of shit, and when they got to the car, they had to pay a toll for it.
hmmm.
God, maybe?
roll ... roll ... roll ............ rimshot
MS could go down a similar route to Apple with OSX.
GPL is problematic, but other opensource is fine for Business.
MS could build a kick ass X server, keep it closed, a KDE and Gnome beating desktop, keep it closed. As long as the API is open that's fine.
And an officesuite, that it is also closed apart from the file formats, and API.
If they used BSD as a base, then they could also keep the drivers closed if they liked.
From a development perspective interoperability is more important than opensource, especially when there is a huge amount of opensource anyhow.
The languages and toolkits are good to be opensource, but much like Trolltech's QT there could be a commercial license associated.
Personally I would like to see all commercial software move over to the Unix platform, and that would happen a lot faster if MS changed direction to that platform, opensource is neither here or there now, so much of it is in the ecosystem, it will never go away.
Wise companies are using that opensource, even wiser ones tend to avoid the GPL software, unless it does fit their business model.
GPL always confuses the issue, but it is great for tinkerers, it is a pact between developers, increasing the chance they will get useful modifications to their codebase. But, it is not great for a competitive business, they don't want to spill the crown jewels, and quite rightly so.
Most developers could build all their own tools, their own editors, their own servers, and their own operating systems, it would just take a lifetime for each person to do it alone, so sharing there is wise.
Someone who is not a developer could never build these tools, and probably has no desire to, they want the tools built from these tools, which they also cannot build. So, opensource works for developers, but it breaks down at the user level.
And no, bug reports however well written don't count (unless you include a fix in code) :).
I don't think it's that simple.
What kind of apocalypse is a question to consider. Many atheists are concerned about global warming or accept the possibility of a technological/social singularity. Many tend to (rationally? irrationally?) believe in community/race consciousness and such things, such that the prophecies are actually independent of religion. So, an atheist is likely to not even consider the possibility of an actual apocalypse being the second coming of the Messiah.
But, for another issue to consider, no matter how reasonable one's own understanding of God may be to oneself, there are always elements that appear from the objective point of view to defy orderly rules of logic.
Non-sequiter seems to be the biggest complaint, and with good reason. Ultimately, as Joshua said, "Chose you this day whom ye will serve."
So, yeah, after Jesus comes again in glory, the concept of His existence will become eminently reasonable, and there is a danger that many Christians might start attempting to depend entirely on reason for their faith.
Atheists, on the other hand, will be faced with a choice. Learn how to let reason have its place and let faith have its place, or abandon reason entirely.
Like I say, not a simple answer.
Dude, I bought mediocre 486 IBM-clone in the 90s for over 2k. Now I can get a fully functioning dell with a monitor for $350. Unless you're going for the very high-end, computer prices have plummeted over the years.
If I were in charge of Microsoft and interested at all in saving the company, here's what I'd do.
Split the company into three parts. Hmm. No, make that four. Five.
One company handles the legacy junk. Maintains it under current licenses (sans enforcement machinery) in more or less the way it is being maintained now. Maybe some necessary incremental improvements when there's no way to fix a vulnerability in the legacy framework. This company will ultimately be absorbed by the fourth company, but it is necessary for a few years.
Another company focuses on the various problems of open sourcing all the "IP" and "technology" in Microsoft's legacy products. This is important in establishing a way out for all of the customers Microsoft has locked in. This company also consults with the other companies to keep the whole operation clean on licensing. It will probably remain independent, to help it keep the other companies playing fair.
The third company focuses on hosting repositories of foss projects and on building Microsoft-specific distributions of Linux, BSD, maybe Plan 9, Apache, the Gimp, Open Office, PostGreSQL, and many other open source offerings. Oh, Wine, et. al., of course. But no funny business with the licenses. All strictly according to the open source rules, and all regularly feeding funding upstream from that huge capitalization. This company will also remain independent.
The fourth company puts the legacy stuff as unmodified as possible on top of solid foundations culled from open source. Again, no license shenanigans. Nothing from legacy is allowed here until the IP/tech group clears it. And it is kept as cross-platform as possible. This company will be absorbed into the the fifth company in twenty to fifty years.
The fifth company hunts for anything that was actually good from the legacy stuff and implements blue-sky projects to see what shakes out. The products will be primarily released under GPL3 or higher or Apache 2 or higher when implementing stuff that's really new, merged upstream or forked appropriately and without license conflicts when they borrow.
The bulk of the new income stream will be service agreements on the stuff the fifth company produces.
Why should they do this? Because it's their mess and they ought to clean it up, especially since they have all that money from making the mess.
I GOT 4 WORDS FOR YOU: DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMU0tzLwhbE seriously though, Microsoft would NEVER go open source, snowballs chance in hell sounds about right
It's not THAT bad! ;-) If you understand the MSI database system, and use Orca frequently to verify the results, WIX can be quite useful for batch creation of MSI databases. The problem with MSI is that it's a database-based install system, and it's not really suitable for programming (although SOME things can be implemented in DLLs or scripts). WIX is only an XML encapsulation of the MSI database format, it does not provide any functionality beyond that.
One is the embrace, extend, extinguish - pretty poor strategy as you can't extinguish OSS, it seems to thrive even when there's very little market share and income. What would happen if Microsoft bought out Red Hat, Ubuntu, Suse, Mandrake etc. today? Tomorrow there'd be new distros with even more ridiculous names looking for Microsoft money. Making Microsoft products more compatible with open source is like opening a big flowgate you'd never get to close again.
The other would be assess, adapt and aquire (hey, I made that up on the spot) where you just figure this'll be important in the future and just buy it up to stop it from becoming a threat. Particularly if you have the market force to *make* them successful. Again, though to do since with a regular company you buy all their assets and that's that, with open source you can't buy and control the source code. Sure you could be the copyright holder but if you tried to bury it or make it part of your closed-source product lineup people would continue using the GPL sources.
In short, I think open source doesn't allow for very many dirty tactics except FUD. If you contribute to OSS, it's designed to remain free and open so you can't pull any funny bait-and-switches. Sure, you can make products that claim to be OSS compatible but in reality aren't (the Java srategy) but it's also a blameshifter - if some reverse engineered format doesn't work right it's poor reverse engineering, if they claim to support something but fail to do so it's Microsoft's fault. At worse the OSS community would have to continue reverse engineering what Microsoft is doing, but I don't see how it could get worse than before.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Let's put it this way.
How did you think people started writing open source software? Because most of the applications they need are either expensive or not compatible with what they are working on. But wait! They have an stable job!!!
Its quite idiotic to assume Microsoft will open up the software they have invested in billions of dollars.
If any person think that open source is a solution to everything. Then how can microsoft be able to feed its employees when a lot of customers will just suddenly becomes users?
Its hard to admit it but I dont think open source movement can actually support people who are coding for money. Or actually can support a company who are constantly conking out innovations because they have budgets for Research and Development.
I don't get Gates, on one hand he gives away money to help the world, but he never though giving away software for free could help the world too? Seems so obvious to me.
Hell to freeze over...
That's pre-supposing there's something desirable to download.
I always thought it would be very smart to open source Windows 98 with a licence that forbids commercial distribution. Many people still use it, and are forced to abandon it because of lack of support. And since cost is for them usually an issue they end up trying Linux and never going back.
Open sourcing it would keep outside support coming, and keep these people in the Microsoft universe. On the other hand it will not cut into their current OS revenue because it will not allow commercial distribution, making it a win/win for them.
Ms already has a large linux lab that frequently contributes code. I see M$ as a company that so huge different bits of it are doing different things and therfore wheras parts of it are undoubtedly anti opensource never mind anti free software other bits are helping the free software comunity.
No they won't, it's a deeply embedded corporate culture and of course MSs definition of 'open source' is different that everyone elses. What will do is continue to pollute and subvert legitimate Open Source through tactics like the Novell/MS covenant and signing patent protection deals with the others. Ultimately buying up Novell and licensing the one true IP protect open source.
.. the GPL? And can anyone implement the specification(s) without any concerns about Microsoft patents?
.. We leave it to those implementing these technologies to understand the legal environments in which they operate. This includes people operating in a GPL environment "
Q: Is this Promise consistent with
A:
davecb5620@gmail.com
A nice idea, but it has drawbacks, like lack of 64-bit support, unprotected registry, user-is-root, weak malloc support, 4gb drive limitations, and so on. It might be cute as a VM, but sadly it would go into the deadpool ranks of BeOS, and other 16/32-bit OSes. I'm reminded of silk purses and sow's ears.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
"Ms already has a large linux lab that frequently contributes code .. other bits are helping the free software comunity"
.. This paper will show how to use OpenSSH with the Kerberos portion of Active Directory to automate authentication"
"OpenSSH on Linux using Windows/Kerberos for Authentication
davecb5620@gmail.com
Not to mention that with open source a lot of things will be added such as: NTFS or any linux FS support (getting rid of the 128GB per drive limitation) good SATA support, IPv6 support, having a lot of things ported from WINE etc.
It would be very useful. And STILL not a threat to MS business models. After all I am saying that this is a good idea for users AND Microsoft.
"Being old I remember the time when Microsoft were this great company who liberated the computing world from the Unix wars"
I can remember going from VAX/VMS and Apples to Win3.11 and Novell, then to WinNT, each progression being worse than the one before. In terms of usability it's total stagnation.
There was Osborne computers, Eagle computers, Atari, Columbia Data Products the one that managed to clone the IBM BIOS, that allowed the rest to mass market clones, that ultimatly ended up running WinDOS exclusively. Doesn't anyone find such a market a little strange. The 'poor unfortunate victims' are us who spent years getting payed peanuts to fix bills crappy OS.
davecb5620@gmail.com
Microsoft has never played with any of the other kids in the sand pit, they will do what is best for them and the market will do what is best for themselves. I can't remember the last time I spoke to anyone who actually loves Microsoft, they use it because they have too and even if I feel pampered using VS the reality is the market place is waking up to the fact that they don't *have too* anymore.
Doing I.T means doing business, business ain't dumb, Vista didn't cut it - end of discussion. This is the first time business has NOT implemented a Microsoft product in the enterprise and shifted from a pro-M$ stance to a wait and see stance. This is because business has the perception that they *need* Microsoft, once that perception is gone what is left? No company is bigger than the whole market and especially a market that is looking for a reason to become hostile towards a company that has been holding them for ransom for years. After all you know what the say
You can fool some of the people all of the time or all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Well I think only things that do not change, require speed or reduce costs migrate their way into hardware firmware over time. As a counterexample to the above quote note that most modern soundcards no longer do hardware mixing (instead leaving the job to the operating system which can sometimes be desirable as you know the feature will be supported everywhere). Another example is hardware encryption on wifi cards. Once upon a time encryption like WEP was done on the hardware. These days it is cheaper to build cards that can pass frames to the host OS to encrypt and then send those (plus it means new encryption can be supported by upgrading the OS rather than the card firmware (assuming the card had the power to do the new type of encryption in the first place)). Also see how winmodems took off once CPU speeds became high enough.
Microsoft will fail if it doesn't embrace Open Source. The original Microsoft model was to offer low-cost alternatives to the competition and become the standard. Now Open Source is providing equally good (or frequently better) products for free.
Legions of programmers are coding for fun what Microsoft employees do for their mind-numbing work while having to deal with middle-management political games and all that other day-to-day dribble that makes working only valuable for a paycheck. Those Open Source programmers actually have a reason and find meaning in what they are doing!
How can Microsoft turn things around? By getting involved with Open Source. I blogged about the 10 major details they need to consider a while back: Discretionary Thoughts
For some additional insight on getting Microsoft to help itself, here is another article. Microsoft needs to embrace Lean Manufacturing to get projects completed earlier and ultimately with more commercial success: Microsoft Ignores the Lean Manufacturing Model & how Vista became a Problem
The most successful Open Source Linux version right now is Ubuntu (especially when combined with its related forks like Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Mint, and others). A major reason is Shuttleworth has kept the project on a six month schedule. It's easy to forecast and incorporate consumer feature requests with that kind of upgrade cycle (and it helps focus the programmers and beta testers). Can Microsoft launch a new Windows every Six Months? And continue doing so for over three+ years?
Challenging... But not impossible.
This is pedantry but the Linux kernel supports registering interpreters with different types of binaries already (look for binfmt_misc ). It is already possible to execute a Windows program on the command line (e.g. by doing ./notepad.exe ) and have it quietly start the program using wine... You can do similar things with Java or Mono.
'Tis true--I swear! (*)
(* offer void where we can prohibit it by law)
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
There is a current movement underway to slowly replace Microsoft at many companies.
At my company, we are slowly rolling out Macs, Google apps, and Linux. Sure, we still have Active Directory, Exchange and SQL, but they are of the 2003/2005 variety. We have NO plans to go to Vista, 2008 server, Exchange 2007, or SQL 2008.
Gmail will eventually replace our Exchange 2003 server, and the ONE application that needs SQL 2005 is running on a terminal server.
Even if MS gave their products away, we still would not consider them. They offer nothing in terms of usability, functionality, stability, or security over their competitors.
MS right now is fucked (they may be starting to realize this). I've been to a couple new product launch events for Microsoft recently, and I can't see one reason to buy their new stuff. ISVs are starting to make their products OS independent (or, at least, support multiple platforms) - thanks to Apple's desktop market share.
Companies will keep the old stuff and when it is time to replace it, MS will probably not be considered. It won't happen overnight - it will take a decade or so.
-ted
OSS is usually not that great. Most of it borrows ideas and technology from others. Linux is basically still a 1970s OS. Companies can get free labor by making their product OSS, so sometimes they buy into it. Socialists love the idea of OSS, for obvious reasons. I've noticed that there are a lot of those on slashdot, hence the entry.
And I can get a RISC-based machine with wireless networking, two cameras and a decent multitasking OS for pennies these days. They are called mobile phones.
The price of a home computer is, more or less, constant - it's not how much it costs to build, but how much people would be willing to pay for it. Without wintel we would have a lot more options to chose from and so would the natural market evolution. The way it is, your next computer will still be a wintel box. Faster, but no revolution will ever occur again in this front. And it won't because Microsoft and Intel don't want it to and pretty much nobody else has a vote. Including you.
The only arena where there is still some evolution (and a revolution every once and then) is the videogame console market precisely because being wintel does nothing to help their sales.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
I had several computers before I could afford a (W)intel machine, back in the day... (we're talking back in the day when a floppy drive was a $250.00 upgrade in '70's dollars - most of us used cassette tape drives for storage before floppy drives hit that price point, even on the early IBM PC's)
I was booting Unix and CP/M on a Commodore=128 setup (my second computer) that cost about one-fourth as much as the original IBM PC running PC-DOS, which was pretty much a crappy clone of CP/M. No Intel in that box - it had a 6510 and a Z-80 - but it did come with Microsoft BASIC installed in ROM which booted by default. There was healthy competition amongst a variety of vendors and platforms in the early home computer market, all of them cheaper than the original platform that evolved into what we now refer to as Wintel. But one thing they all had in common - they all came with Microsoft software, usually embedded in ROM (yes, even the early IBM-PC's had MS BASIC in ROM - later, when they booted DOS by default, the BASIC ROM's were taken out of the design and BASIC was loaded from disc if you needed it).
(W)intel won because the IBM-PC won. It was designed and marketed by a world leader in business machines and big-iron computer equipment, and it was targeted at business. People who would have otherwise had no reason to learn how to operate a computer were trained on the job. Once pc's got down to a reasonable price for home use, these people chose what they were familiar with for their home pc's. These people far outnumbered those of us hobbying around on cheaper platforms, so those platforms died off. The price competition introduced with the advent of the PC clone along with Moore's law led to today's low prices. It wasn't until ten years or more after the clone market began that I found it cost-effective to migrate to a Wintel platform for home use, when the price/performance of Wintel finally beat that of my Amiga system. (Of course, since I've been a hobbyist since day-1, I'm on a Lintel platform these days)
It's impossible to say how things would have turned out without Wintel, but one thing seems certain to me: cheap computers would have happened either way. Either healthy competition amongst competing platforms (which is what was happening before the PC emerged), or the cloning of whichever platform emerged as the clear leader (which is how it eventually went) insures that. And either way, Microsoft was already well-positioned to dominate the software industry, as they were already entrenched as the software supplier of choice amongst most hardware vendors.
I think the most feasible way for MSFT to go open source and still keep a decent revenue stream is to deliberately enter the hardware business in a manner similar to Apple. One way to do this would be to keep the Operating System open and Direct X closed. Then they can enter the business of selling the premiere gaming systems with their OS while allowing the open source community to improve the operating system.
"Obviously Crays and Connection Machines were never going to be home computers."
Funny you say that, because I could swear my son's videogame console outperforms a supercomputer built just a few years earlier than it. And, of course, it does not use an x86 CPU. And while a CM-2 would never be a home computer, we never again saw custom-designed (read: designs that push the envelope of what's possible) CPUs in supercomputers. The TOP500 is full of racks of x86 boxes (and a couple x86/Cell setups).
I would love to have a cheap and capable Cell-based desktop (specially IBM's new generation Cells) or a machine with hardware assisted garbage collection (like lisp machines had in early 80s and Azul systems seem to have today). Lots of nice inventions got lost in this tsunami of mediocrity.
"Without Wintel (or some other standard platform), most of us couldn't even afford a computer."
Enter the C-64, initially priced at US$600 with more memory than any competitor at the same price point. In its end, you could buy a perfectly capable 8-bit computer that ran a whole lot of software for US$200. And it ruled for games.
Oh... And the Amiga, the first home computer to provide real multitasking and decent multimedia capabilities. It double-ruled for games, but also grew into a very capable high-end multimedia platform. The first season of Babylon-5 special effects was rendered on one.
And the Atari ST that, while more limited than the Amiga, was the first computer to break the US$1/KB barrier (the 1040). It was also the first under US$1000 32-bit computer with a megabyte of RAM. Under US$600, if you count the 520ST (which had 512K).
And, in the UK, the Archimedes: An inexpensive RISC-based PC that, without any floating-point acceleration, outperformed a 386/387 PC in... floating point. Its processor still lives today in just about every smartphone.
And, still from the UK, the Sinclair ZX series. the first computers to be sold under US$100. And the QL, probably the first 32-bit home computer.
So, of course, nobody had home computers before wintel... Really.
As for the NT on Alpha, PPC and MIPS, they were victims of the wintel dominance. They could run Windows, and Write, and Solitaire, and Minefield and sometimes even Office, but would not run any software built for wintel (unless under emulation). When the wintel standard got dominant, pretty much every other architecture was doomed in the desktop segment.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
Well. the Mac was never affordable (no Apple ever has prior to the current crop).
But the Ataris, Commodores really were outstandingly powerful boxes at bargain prices.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
You seem to be saying that the reason why MS won't open up and free their OS is because when their OS is closed and not free, people are making it free.
Surely, if MS made it open and free, then these people could not make it open and free. 'cos it already is.
Isn't that what this means?
MS was the biggest opponent of opensource and by far the most visible "successful" closed-source proponent.
When your "enemy" starts to embrace your ideology you have won.
There's that list
"first they ignore you, ..."
then they hate you,
Doesn't it end with
"and then they join you."
It should give up IE, media player, and other junk to the better OSS alternatives.
Of course, in the long run, windows will have to have more and more OSS inside it.
Microsoft is already being forced to bring down the windows price to $30 because of the EEE crowd; and as more millions and millions of OSS Netbooks find their way to users, it won't be an ubergeek thing to use linux after all. Perhaps because of all these pressures, Apple has refrained from attacking the Hackintosh crowd. As one commenter mentioned, the battle for the desktop is only starting.
Open source Windows 9X and Windows 2000/XP and MS-Office 2002 and under in order to prove to the world that Microsoft is finally embracing open source licensing.
If Windows Vista and MS-Office 2007 are so superior that Microsoft is no longer selling older versions, then just open source the older versions and let others work on them.
Also open source Xenix and make a deal with SCO to stop the Linux lawsuits of which SCO Unix is based on Microsoft Xenix.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Little changes with Gates retirement and that company cast its lot with evil along time ago. Moving forward without Microsoft is best for they are nothing but a source of hazardous pollution and their big ole toothy smiles should fool no one at this point. Let them die the death they so richly deserve.
I think not ... I think not!
their really isn't a microprocessor significantly faster
A core 2 duo is 291 million transistors, an ARM7 is 72000 transistors. What if we made a (291000000/2/72000) = 2020 cores ARM7 ? I know this is stupid and not gonna work (the processor would draw 1000x more instructions to run, memory bus access would be inefficient, ...), but anyway, we are talking about raw power and no other processor has more than 200 million transistors, of which a good part is just an emulation layer for the x86 instruction set.
LLVM is the future.
Microsoft has legacy code to support, and it is getting problematic (win32 api is the crappiest piece of code ever made). They really should turn to open source for NEW technologies, not for old snowballs running down the mountain for years. Who cares about Vista except people who cry for bringing XP back ? The OS which will care is Windows seven (or whatever they call it).
I didn't say anything about a lack of profit at Red Hat, I just stated that the day may come when corporations ask themselves why they should pay for something that is available for free.
As far as credit for Linux is concerned, I'd put Thompson and Ritchie at the top of the list and Linus second. I leave the rest of the ranking to the Linux community (of which I am not a part).
My broader point, however, is that Red Hat isn't a good poster boy for the business viability of open source and in particular not an example of how MS could succeed at it.
There's a big difference making a product open source that you've already spent millions of dollars on for a decade without help (e.g MS Office), and making contributions to an existing product (however limited it may have been) that was somebody else's idea.
Does Red Hat have any brand new product ideas that aren't part of the Linux OS that they'd like to spend a few years developing and release version 1.0 under the GPL license?
God you sound like a broken record.
Companies that continue with an inferior business model and demand government protection earn poor reputations and eventually fail.
Oh, you mean like IBM.
Microsoft sell software, you can't really do that with open source software. But if things get desparate, they may keep lowering their prices like they have done recently with Vista.
They still have a big market. One thing that will be hard to beat for the next few years is "Outlook". And they will never sell it for Linux. Just imagine if they did. That would be the end for Windows. Businesses would immediately start switching to Linux with Outlook and Open Office. That would become the standard office setup.
Bill Gates has stated that they have succeeded with other peoples failures and he is right. Outlook is a real killer application for the office and there is no decent competition for it.
Therefore I will conclude that Microsoft can keep selling Windows + Office (including Outlook) because there is nothing to match it.
Good old Outlook, that is their real strength in my opinion.
A sure sign of openness is a publicly available bug tracking system. Amongst the myriad examples, these exist for Java, OpenOffice, all the Apache projects etc etc etc
But no such thing exists for Word, Excel or Powerpoint. Think you've found a bug in Word? Good luck verifying that it is known or reporting it if it isn't.
Making the bug tracking systems publicly accessible (with the usual exclusion of security vulnerabilities) would be a win-win for Microsoft and all its customers.
As such, when this happens, you can take it as a sure sign that enough Microsofties who count understand that a degree of openness is to their advantage.
I just thought you might like to know; you can use ^W to erase a word, rather than ^H to erase each character in it.
Centralized control doesn't scale. Once a project becomes large enough that you need two layers of middle management, the people in charge no longer have direct contact with the people in the trenches. You lose coordination and the benefits of centralization, including the high efficiency.
Decentralization keeps control close to the working level. It doesn't provide optimal efficiency overall, but it scales very well.
This is why large companies are rarely efficient. This is also the reason command economies fail and open markets thrive. On a technical level, it is also the main reason Bittorrent is moving to decentralized trackers.
There is a huge difference between being an "Open Source Friendly" company and an "Open Source" company. MS is making sounds about moving towards a friendly stance towards Open Source, however no one, and I mean NO ONE, should expect them to become an Open Source company in and of itself. This company has had a very long history of being very ANTI open source. Gates himself started his business attacking the Open Source community (or what would eventually become the community). Microsoft DOES need to change. They know now they can not destroy Open Source, so they are starting to work with it. This would be a blessing. MS needs to start embracing Open Source simply because they are the current standard in business. To remain on top (and yes, they aren't going to always be the defacto top dog) they will need to be able to work with all the other systems that are making ground. If they fail at that, more and more companies are going to go with systems that can operate with the majority of other systems out there. Our way or the highway will not work in the future. Open Source is gaining, and will continue to make inroads as it gains popularity.
Open Source: Eroding the Digital Divide
had it been accurate and read "microsoft might become open source friendly..." i wouldn't have bothered clicking on it, but since it read "microsoft to become open source friendly..." i assumed there was some actual news here, rather than speculation pretending to be news.
Depends on your definition of "Computer"
Many large companies don't sell computers to buisiness (or governments) anymore. they sell "Solutions".
"Computer" has become synonomous with an x86 compatible running Microsoft windows. People have come to know the strengths and limitations of that model quite well.
IMO, the most successful computer world-wide is the basic calculator: it just works.
The same can be said for the computer chips embeded in your toaster, microwave and car.
DRM is sort of hurting the functionality of computer chips in Audio-Visual equipment, IMHO.
All twelve of them on the rag now? Awwww, that's just too bad. Bet it was M$ that did that to you personally!
Moore's law increases complexity and performance, but what happens to the superceded hardware?
It gets considered obsolete, and becomes available very cheaply. End users don't have cutting edge hardware, the likes of IBM and Cray use that to build supercomputers.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
``Microsoft [post Gates] to donate $50 to FSF for every copy of Windows sold''