Why Windows Must (and Will) Go Open Source

Attila Dimedici writes "Charles Babcock of Information Week published an interesting article suggesting that Microsoft will have to at least to some degree take Windows open source if they want to stay in business. He suggests that the money to be made from the things MS builds on top of Windows (Office, Server, SQL Server, Exchange, Sharepoint, etc.) is so much greater than what can be made from Windows itself that MS will have to give up the revenue stream from Windows in order to maintain these other, more valuable, revenue streams."

Comments

Nonsense

[eln]

Having to give the OS away for free in order to sell the apps only makes sense if you don't already have a stranglehold on the OS market. Sure, MS has gotten some bad press lately but they still enjoy the overwhelming share of the OS market, and that isn't likely to change anytime soon.

The fact that they are not making a lot of money selling Vista does not mean people are moving away from MS in droves...they're just sticking to an older MS product for now. MS is still entrenched as simply the way people expect computers to work, and it's going to take a much longer series of much larger screwups from Microsoft to change that.

Re:Nonsense

[BorgAssimilator]

I tend to agree. Granted, they're going to have to change something or they'll _eventually_ fall behind. It'll take a while though... They may even need to reduce the cost of the OS at some point. However, that being said, I don't think they'll ever _need_ to open source any of it to stay in business.

Disclaimer: I'm not a business expert and the above statement could just be coming out of my ass.

Re:Nonsense

[Mozk]

I'd like to point out that open source does not have to mean free.

Re:Nonsense

[Thaelon]

They have clear market dominance now, but it's slipping.

We'll probably say "This is the year of the linux" desktop for along time, but when the time finally comes it won't be news anymore.

These kinds of things happen so gradually no one notices. Try and find any historical headlines about "the year of the lightbulb", "the year of the telephone", or the "year of the internet".

Re:Nonsense

[UnknowingFool]

The fact that they are not making a lot of money selling Vista does not mean people are moving away from MS in droves...they're just sticking to an older MS product for now. MS is still entrenched as simply the way people expect computers to work, and it's going to take a much longer series of much larger screwups from Microsoft to change that.

Unfortunately MS is pushing people more to open source than anyone else. People have legacy systems and documents that need support while MS is pushing them to buy the latest and greatest. XP is still in such demand that they had to push back the date to stop selling it. Need to open an Office 97 document? Some of the best compatibility comes from OpenOffice not Office 2007.

Re:Nonsense

[Tubal-Cain]

And I'd like to point out CentOS.

Re:Nonsense

[Joce640k]

Most people don't "buy" Windows. They buy a PC and it just happens to be installed.

Until they're aware that they're paying for it then it makes no difference whether or not it's free.

If things get rough Microsoft can drop the price to $20 and nobody will care either way.

In short: Article fails.

Re:Nonsense

[theolein]

...Sure, MS has gotten some bad press lately but they still enjoy the overwhelming share of the OS market, and that isn't likely to change anytime soon.

...

I think that Microsoft might face some significant challenges with the recession. The daily news reports of enormous amounts of people being laid off at very large companies, traditionally Microsoft's major source of income, indicate to me that almost all comanies expect to lose large amounts of money in the next few years before, and if, the economy starts to pick up again.

I think that the way these companies operate in such times is that IT dpartments will be under great pressure to economise as much as they possibly can. If that using Linux and Open Office means they can save 5% a year, after retraining and reequipping, I'm pretty sure they will do it.

What I'm almost sure practically no big company in their right mind would do right now, in these times, is upgrade to Windows Vista or Windows 7. Those OSes require greater hardware resources than WinXP does and more than Linux does. I am sure that companies will try to use the very cheapest lowest cost hardware they can find to run their businesses.

I am aware that many companies will not find it cheaper to migrate to Linux in these times, but sooner or later, as support for XP starts to die out, they will be forced to move one way or the other. I think very few will be willing to spend big on new expensive hardware and software in the next few years.

Re:Nonsense

[EvanED]

It is a pretty strong implication though, at least for people who don't care much for support. More specifically, care more about saving $$$ than getting support.) I strongly suspect most home users would fall into this category. If MS open sourced Windows but still charged for it, someone would buy it then release it for free. Then all those people who want to save money would go to the person distributing it for free, at least if they knew about it. (They might have to strip it of the Windows trademark, but I still don't think that would increase the value all that much.)

Re:Nonsense

[againjj]

Exactly. I read the article as follows:
1) MS does not get nearly as much revenue from a copy of Windows as it does from a copy of Office. (This is per copy revenue, not total, and besides, even if it is smaller, it doesn't mean it is insignificant.)
2) People are turning away from Windows because they do not like to pay for Windows, at least on the business desktop or in the server room. (Come on. Price is not the only reason for choosing an OS. Not even cost is.)
3) Ergo, Windows will need to be free(gratis) in order to keep market share. (What? Why? There are other ways to get/keep market share than competing on price. Windows is a nice case study.)
4) Windows needs market share so that MS can sell apps. (Why? They can't make apps for other operating systems?)
5) The author can't see why MS will make Windows free(gratis) without also making it free(libre). (What? Where on earth did that come from?)
Conlusion: Windows is going to go open source!

The premises are shaky, the logic is faulty, assumptions abound, and even if it were all true, MS is not necessarily going to be logical!

Re:Nonsense

[Adam Hazzlebank]

I'd like to point out that open source does not have to mean free.

And free does not have to mean open source. The article gives several reasons why MS might want to give Windows away but no compelling reasons why it should make it open source. Closed source isn't just about getting paid for software it's about control. They control the APIs and all the little gotchas that make producing a windows clone difficult. If Windows was fully open sourced, I'd bet we'd have a fully working Wine within months. At that point MS Windows just becomes "another Windows API implementation". You could say "so what!? they just start targeting the windows API for Linux, it's an even bigger market!". The problem is that controlling the API gives MS unique advantages. Exchange integrates tightly with active directory MS get to add features to the operating system API simply to make their apps work better. If the API is open they don't get to do that and in general they get pushed toward open standards rather than proprietary ones. No more "you can't get feature X,Y and Z unless you use Outlook", no more lockin.

Re:Nonsense

[ushering05401]

I don't have an opinion on this subject, but there is a problem with your points.

When you are talking about a 100% proprietary stack you are talking about a massive development cost burden. While MS could attempt to target other platforms for their programs their costs will not scale favorably.

At first blush the author is simply making the mistake of going one step too far with the analysis (that MS must choose Open Source). The underlying economic reality of maintaining a 100% proprietary stack tied to a proprietary foundation seems to dictate that MS will need to do something, but not necessarily this.

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

plus after layoffs there is far less staff to train

Re:Nonsense

[mysidia]

Every month there are dozens of security vulnerabilities, and a few patches.

Imagine how many security vulnerabilities and patches there would have to be to protect against them if MS released the code.

I think a sufficient number to prevent MS from making the source publicly visible: they can't undermine windows security like that, they might even get sued by their own customers, when hackers used the source code release to compromise their systems.

Not to mention components in Windows that contain technology or source licensed from third parties who would not be willing to assent to a code release.

Re:Nonsense

[BrokenHalo]

I'm sure the scenario you have illustrated must have already occurred to Microsoft. What you're overlooking, though, is people's expectation that the machine should work "out of the box".

If they tried to gouge customers like this, I'm fairly sure they would see a mass exodus of their customers to Mac.

Re:Nonsense

[drsmithy]

What I'm almost sure practically no big company in their right mind would do right now, in these times, is upgrade to Windows Vista or Windows 7. Those OSes require greater hardware resources than WinXP does and more than Linux does.

Most companies work on a 3-5 year replacement cycle. So ca. 2010, pretty much every machine in any business will be quite capable of running Vista or Windows 7. Unlike nerds, companies aren't shopping around to try and save $10 (or even $50) on a $500 machine.

It boggles my mind that people still carry on about Vista's hardware requirements. Brand new PCs that can run it fine cost under US$350. It was a non-issue when Vista was released and it's even more of a non-issue now.

I am sure that companies will try to use the very cheapest lowest cost hardware they can find to run their businesses.

Most businesses are far more interested in consistent, reliable and well-supported hardware than they are in saving a few hundred per machine, amortised over 3-5 years. The inevitably higher personnel costs that are incurred from shitty, bottom-of-the-barrel hardware more than make up for any initial purchase savings. That is why businesses prefer, say, Dell's Optiplex line over their Inspiron line, even though they're noticably more expensive.

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

MS will have to "give up its revenue stream" in the OS (meaning giving it away for free) in order to protect the revenue stream from their other apps.

This is what I don't get about the whole article. Microsoft makes about 99.999% of their actual profit from variations of Windows and Office. Everything else is just window dressing to keep the accounts from being too boring. Saying they should stop charging for Windows so they can maintain their revenues from all those other things is like saying car makers should stop charging for cars so they can maintain their revenues from cargo nets and foot mats.

Re:Nonsense

[davolfman]

It's still there it's just been amortized over 8 years. New computers need new OEM licenses so there will always be a trickle coming in. Unfortunately for MS they killed their upgrade market by allowing XP to stay around long enough that early XP computers couldn't viably run Vista.

Re:Nonsense

[jmorris42]

> 1) MS does not get nearly as much revenue from a copy of Windows as it does from a copy of Office.

More precisely, the take from Windows is destined to trend towards zero. Netbooks are only part of the problem. The only barrier to sub $200 desktops is the price of an OEM copy of Vista. You never want to be "the only barrier" when talking about opening up a new lower price tier, especially in a down economy because all the pressure is on vendors to find a way around the barrier and gain an advantage over the chumps who didn't. Especially small hungry vendors looking to take a chunk out of Dell, HP, etc. Of course exactly the same argument will eventually be made about Office, SQL Server and all the rest. The existence of Open Source drives per unit pricing towards zero.

But for the short term the origional article has a point, Windows revenue is nice but it's ability to drive the larger revenue streams is more important.

Once HP broke the unwritten rule and displayed multiple operating systems in the same dropdown menu, with prices beside each option, the was cast. Windows will soon be going for near $0.

> 2) People are turning away from Windows because they do not like to pay for Windows, at
> least on the business desktop or in the server room.

Not exactly. It is the difficulty of maintaining the per copy licensing in a virtual world that is also a problem. But price is a factor, as noted above. So long as people either thought Windows was "free" in that it was an invisible and non-negotiable part of the price of buying a PC the price wasn't an issue. That is no longer true.

> 3) Windows will need to be free(gratis) in order to keep market share.

It won't have to be zero instantly but the price must be very low and heading towards zero. When a PC was $2,000 the cost of DOS/Windows was easilly borne. As the price plummets to where Windows is easilly the most expensive component it becomes an unstable situation. The smart thing would be for Microsoft to get ahead of the curve and try to control the process.

> 4) Windows needs market share so that MS can sell apps. (Why? They can't make
> apps for other operating systems?)

With the sole exception of Office for the Mac they have zero record of doing it successfully. That has to scare the piss out of em.

> 5) The author can't see why MS will make Windows free(gratis) without also making it
> free(libre). (What? Where on earth did that come from?)

Ask Sun. They did it a good five years too late and look at em. Microsoft could learn from that mistake.

My advice to Microsoft would be to submit to what must be and doing so while there is time to control the process. Don't do it all at once, attack the biggest problems first.

Stage One: Shared Source. Us RMS Pure types often forget that source code can be published under a normal copyright. So publish the source to Windows, stick it in the standard MSDN stuff. This gives developers many of the advantages of working on Linux, they can Use The Source when the published docs disagree with the actual code. Move all development to a public repo, available only to MSDN subscribers of course. This lets them see the direction the code is going, download development snapshots, etc. Accept contributions of code, but only with a copyright assignment. Be sure to loudly credit outside contributors.

Binaries wouldn't change much, but discount slightly reduced function copies ruthlessly to keep the netbook and budget PC markets from slipping away. 70% market share on netbooks is a disaster in the making.

Stage Two: Release free binaries. Not Free mind you, just free copies for 'non-commercial use', then free but unsupported (service contracts and per incident support available) when the OEM market demanded the move.

Stage Three: GPL. Move the source to the GPL (or other strong copyleft license) keeping the requirement for copyright assignment on contributions. This allows a more fun

Re:Nonsense

[lawpoop]

MS's revenue stream will increasingly become the annual license fee.

If they can actually keep up with it. They've tried software subscriptions already; it was a failure. They couldn't keep up release cycles for their monolithic software.

I think really only web application providers can do periodic software licensing.

Re:Nonsense

[voxner]

Microsoft simply can't manage their code in-house anymore

Just because they botched vista/longhorn once does not mean they will never again be able to manage the code-in house.

in a closed-source Microsoft, developers really only have one itch to scratch - their pay check.

Programmers at Microsoft will be facing challenges that are quite similar to the ones faced by their linux counterparts. Their might as well be programmers in Mircrosoft who love what they do. So your statement generalizes (incorrectly) a parochial scenario as representative of the whole orgainzation and its mores.

With open source, the developers are scratching a different itch. Often, they'll work on something out of passion alone, at which point some commercial entity may decide simply to start paying them full-time for doing what they enjoy. Recognition, pay - what could be better?

Yes its true but a whole lot of development in the OS world (especially linux) is made possible by developers in corporations(ibm,red-hat..etc) who going by your logic are likely to be equally susceptible to just the "paycheck" itch .

Your argument is reflective of the romanticization of the "hacker" lifestyle that seems to be quite popular here in slashdot.

Re:Nonsense

[daveime]

And the vast majority of MS service packs are hotfixes you could have got immediately using LiveUpdate. Indeed, if memory serves, I got XP SP1 and SP2 from LiveUpdate, cost nada.

And how often does Apple actually do point upgrades ? They usually save them up, and then sell you the next full version with all the bug fixes included.

So which is more expensive in the long run ?

Re:Nonsense

[daveime]

You mean the way they gave away "free" Internet Explorer and Media Player with every purchase on XP ?

Can you imagine the field day the antitrust proponents would have with that, if they gave away the whole O/S ?

Already, there are people who "claim" that MS turns a blind eye to piracy because it increases their overall share of the market, what more if they give the whole thing away ?

Re:Nonsense

[gbjbaanb]

I don;t think your stage 1 makes too much sense in a Windows world - I think you're approaching it from the Linux POV, which says open source is good because it reduces your overall costs for developing new features. MS would not open the Windows source any more than they already have, they don't even need to put new features in.

What I think they do need to do is allow multiple versions available for install on virtual hosts, possibly give the OS away for free (either implicitly in that they won't care if you pirate it unless you're selling your pirate copies, or explicitly). New features will then become shifted to the Office team (who already have a track record of doing things their way anyway - look at all the controls, libraries and even frameworks that Office team did first that then found their way into Windows). You're got to have a reason to buy Office after all!

Stage 5.. well, if they come to give Office away, you can guarantee it'll be a Word Home Express edition, maybe even Home Premium, Professional and Ultimate. (ah, except they already have those tiers!)

but ultimately, after playing my my mate's new eeePC, sod 'em - the linux OS he had was great, even if it did run those blocky Gnome dialogs :)

Not likely

[burning-toast]

Just look at Gates' earlier comments about how open source ruins development models.

Something tells me that ship might sink rather than adapt (assuming the opinion piece on the direction of the market is correct in the first place).

- Toast

Re:Not likely

[theredshoes]

Windows 7 is coming out and people will be migrating from Windows XP to Windows 7.

Windows Market Share Climbing

Re:Not likely

[Anonymous Coward]

Aaaand pigs will be flying...

New John Dvorak

[hwyhobo]

Are we witnessing new John Dvorak being born?

Re:And nobody will care...

[Ethanol-fueled]

The world is moving away from x86 arch

Like Apple did?

Incomplete Summary

[meatmanek]

Honestly, can't the summary tell us at least "Why Windows Must (and Will) Go Open Source?" The summary doesn't explain why, it simply counters one reason why not.

Re:And nobody will care...

[AuMatar]

What planet are you from? PPC is dead. Sparc is dieing. Embedded is owned by ARM almost as completely as x86 rules the desktop. Intel attempted to kill x86 with IA-64, only to see it fail miserably to AMDs x86-64. Hell, x86 is even making inroads in embedded systems. A few very high end specialty devices like game consoles are doing other architectures, but that's about it. If anything the x86 stranglehold is stronger than ever.

Windows will die one day...

[rlseaman]

...the real question is whether what comes after Windows will be open source.

Microsoft is likely to outlive Windows, one way or another. Future computers will not resemble current computers indefinitely, including the operating systems. Thus, Microsoft will have to attempt to lead or follow a post-Windows trend - and likely a post-Linux trend.

Obviously new OSes springing forth from Linux will remain open source. (At least, one can hope.) Will Microsoft, on the other hand, attempt to stay with a closed development model in a post-Windows world?

Any question or assertion about Windows itself is beyond boring.

Problem with Windows

[bluefoxlucid]

The problem with Windows is its backup software is Veritas. Its disk defragmenter is ... I forget who, I think it may be Disk Keeper. Most of the internal tools are licensed from companies that Microsoft doesn't own; you can buy a much better Veritas backup system or a full Disk Keeper license and get network control and everything. They can't open source this, and they can't give it away for free because they have to pay it back somehow; free Windows would be "Windows LE" or "Limited Edition" ... limited in ability to do anything but run programs you'll have to buy.

Open Source? Really?

[KGBear]

I believe the author means 'free', not open source. There are lots of reasons why MS wouldn't do either, but even if you buy the argument, all MS would need to do would be drop the price to $0. That doesn't mean GPL'ing the code! Gosh!

Re:Open Source? Really?

[Sfing_ter]

They wouldn't charge $0 they would charge the regular price and work in a $300 rebate for every M/W/C in the US for their next DOJ violation. With the rebate they will recoup the cost in tax breaks/deductions via the BackScratch clause they have when the DOJ/US Govt. "Punishes" them.

Re:And nobody will care...

[headbulb]

The game consoles are all doing PPC in some form. The xbox360 ps3 and wii.

Then there is all the network gear that uses arm and ppc

ppc is far from dead.

TFA: Cliff's Notes and critique

[jonaskoelker]

FTFA:

To neutralize the advantages of Linux and other open source competitors, Microsoft will have to make Windows more like them. If it doesn't, it risks losing the 6-million-plus developer base that's made the Windows platform great.

Uhmm... why would the developer base run away? I don't get it. Because everyone else has? Then what starts them?

Also, why would Microsoft open-sourcing things be good for Microsoft? Either people shift to Linux because they drink the RMS kool aid (that'd include me), or because it's the better product for them (I then found out this also included me).

If they shift because they drink the RMS kool aid, then we can assume that they prefer a completely free OS (including application stack), which MS won't give out (according to the article, at least).

If they shift because Linux is the better product (technically, that is), Windows being open source(d) won't change the fact that Linux is the better product.

In other words, Windows may be what established Microsoft, but Windows can't sustain the company.

Why not? Where are the figures to back this up? I think you'd need to make an assumption about the relative number of OEM XP licenses vs. OEM Office licenses sold with new computers to just get something linking the claim back to the article.

The proprietary file formats that have protected Microsoft apps have been offset by Office Open XML

Here's the spec: if the document says jump, you jump as high as this other unspecified program. I have heard (but beware of echo chamber effects) that it's nigh impossible to write two implementations of the OOXML spec that renders identical outputs. So if people are going to look at $COMPETITOR Office and say "but my documents look all wrong, let me go back to Microsoft", how was the consumer really not locked in?

Blargh. I'm just going to judge this book by its first page. You can find some statistics in the article if you need them, but they seem loosely connected, and the article fails to specify why its predictions are likely to come true.

Article: -1, Overrated.

"open source," but not open??

[bcrowell]

title of article: Why Windows Must Go Open Source

Fourth sentence of article: "[...]Windows will never become an open source project in the same vein as Linux[...]"

Sixth sentence of article: "[...]I'll concede that some Windows source code probably will never see the light of day."

I think what he really wants to say is that the cost of Windows has to approach zero. That's completely different from being open source. It's the classic "free as in speech" (or as in freedom) versus "free as in beer."

I think it should be fairly obvious that MS can't open-source the whole OS. For one thing, I doubt that they own the copyright of every single line of code in Windows, and they've surely had to license a gazillion patents, make deals involving trade secrets, etc. Look at the situation with Linux and GPL 2 versus GPL 3 -- even if Linus changed his mind and wanted to make it GPL 3, it can't happen, because you won't get thousands of programmers to agree. With Windows it's bound to be even more complex.

Okay, so let's imagine that the price of Windows becomes zero dollars. So what? Then the US would be like China, just another country where everybody runs Windows and nobody pays for it. You'd still have banks telling you their web interface only works with IE. You'd still have people with hard disks full of documents that are in proprietary formats, preventing them from switching to Linux. Things like video encoders and color management would still be patent encumbered. The main effect would probably be to boost MS's market share, and that would probably allow them not just to sell more copies of Office, etc., but to abuse their monopoly more effectively for competitive advantage. That's essentially what the author of the article is talking about by the time he gets to pages 2 and 3.

And is anyone under the illusion that every version of Windows would cost zero dollars? No way. They'd very carefully set up a tiered system of price-differentiated versions of Windows in order to maximize their profits. Then it's like drug dealing: the first hit is free. This is what they're already doing in the third world, turning a blind eye to pirated versions of Windows because it helps to make those countries dependent on MS. The article says preinstalled Win XP is about $34 worth of the price of a new computer, and $34 is close enough to zero that I'd say that we're essentially already in that regime.

Re:And nobody will care...

[gsnedders]

Windows NT 4.0 ran on x86, Alpha, MIPS and PowerPC. Nowadays, there are only (really) x86, x86_64, and IA-64 versions now (I say really because there is a PPC version of sorts -- the 360's OS, which is forked from that of the original Xbox (x86) which itself was forked from Windows 2000).

Windows has in the past not been bound to x86 for desktop use, it just never really caught on.

MS Linux

[Foofoobar]

It would make more sense if they released their own version of Linux. They could EASILY sell support, books and rake in money for it. and if they sold their apps for Linux, again, they would have a huge market as their product would run on Macs as well with little re-engineering.

The damage they would do to the other Linux resellers would be enormous (in the short term) and if they could do a good enough job, they could become a huge longterm player and maybe even kill off the other players.

Re:MS Linux

[icebraining]

If they release their apps for Linux, all the other Linux resellers would have them! All Linuxes (including MS's) would be in the same boat and then companies like RedHat could really fight MS's dominance in the OS market.

No, the worst thing they can do to Linux resellers is keeping the current business model.

Re:What's more, support costs are a bitch

[fat_mike]

I honestly believe that a lot of you haven't used Windows recently. I have XP running on 50 computers with 20 of those being laptop scattered all over the US. I can't remember the last time I had to fix a problem that directly involved Windows XP. 99.9% of my issues are due to drivers and third-party software that we use.

Its real easy, you make one install, tweaked and setup how the company needs it. You test it and then use that to build all the rest of the machines. If you encounter a problem on one it is very easy to fix on the rest.

Sure, I love Linux. I have three servers in my basement with over 600 hours of HD tv stored on them plus all my DVD, CD's and old VHS tapes. I have MythTV machines that are tweaked to where you'd have to be an inch away to hear any sound coming from them hooked up to all my TV's. Its great, took four fucking years to get right but it works now and I'm happy.

I don't have time to do that at work. I'm one person supporting 50 people. I don't have time to retrain them on Open Source software and we sure as hell aren't going to pay someone to do it. We hired a kid fresh out of college two years ago. It was our first hire in five years and the youngest hire we've ever had. It took her 1/10th of the time to get up to speed on our software (not Windows, the programs we use) than anyone else.

You know why? The interfaces were familiar and she knew where to look for things because that's what she had been using her whole computer life.

Its not as simple as Year of the Linux Desktop. So many of you have no idea how the business world works.

Here's how Micrsosoft will make Windows OSS

[argent]

They'll do it by redefining open source. After all, they can wrap a proprietary file format up in XML so that instead of being a bunch of undocumented blobs in a binary stew they're a bunch of undocumented blobs in an XML stew, and manage to convince people to say things like this...

The proprietary file formats that have protected Microsoft apps have been offset by Office Open XML, the default format for Office 2007 and now an international standard.

Re:I doubt

[Locke2005]

I have a theory that most closed source remains closed source simply because the authors would die of embarrassment if anybody else saw what a steaming pile of crap they had written. Microsoft's "ship it when it is 'good enough' and let the customer complete the beta testing" philosophy probably doesn't allow for cleaning up old code bases to make them presentable.

Re:Not so much, but...

[Surt]

But within a year, you'd have a robust, performant windows operating system. In two years you'd have the complete *nix api supported. And it would all be free, so why would you care if linux lived or died at that point?

Well, according to Joe Brockmeier

[davidsyes]

I hope Open Source and Linux, and Sun and Apple can bring ms to its crouching duck-walk position as much as many others would like to see. But, MANY open source developers are simply going to have to come up with more polished user interfaces. App installation is STILL going to have to:

-- become as simple as click on the .tar, no yum /apt-get/ whatever
-- be as smart as installing with a click (after permissions have been determined valid and authorized)
-- and the installer will ALSO have to be smart enough to know how to just search for the Internet-available-but-signed-trusted choices of file are

I have on occasion probably used yum and apt-get and to a greater extent rpm and tar files. It SHOULD be easier. I am sure it IS easy. But, for me, it does not always work. If I have a need to get Rhyme working, and not all the deps are there, it's a show-stopper to face "repository not found", "dependencies (collide/incompatible...)"

But, that's just me and i have to sort these things out so i have less to complain about. BUT...

Joe Brockmeier has, :

http://ostatic.com/blog/open-source-windows-dont-count-on-it

"Open sourcing Windows wouldn't be a simple thing -- it took Sun years to comb through Solaris to start open sourcing it. If I recall correctly, Sun announced the initiative about a year before any code was released as open, and then other bits have been coming in dribs and drabs since. Windows would probably take even longer -- so, going from closed to open would take a couple of years and cost the company momentum even if they chose to do it.

There's also the legal bits. It would probably take Microsoft a very long time to review the code and ensure that it can be open sourced. I also suspect the company would be hesitant to show its code to the world in its present state -- no doubt, it'd take a while to go through the code just to scrub the comments. There's also the matter of third-party code that would need to be rewritten or relicensed to open source it. It's much easier to start a project using an open source license than it is to go from proprietary to open source."

Re:Instead of pure open source...

[Sunshinerat]

I do not think that MS is able to release Windows as Open Source. Most likely there is too much stuff in it that cannot be opened up (same issue as Sun had with Java).

If there was a day where Windows would be free, it would be free without source.

But honestly, I do not think that is going to happen. Free Windows comes with any new PC (consumer perception), so why throw a perfectly good revenue stream.

Re: "sticking to an older MS product"

[macraig]

You do realize that is basically a business model doomed to failure, right? They need the revenue from upgrades to recoup the princely sum wasted on Vista. If people don't upgrade, there's no more revenue until after - they hope - the next version release. Sure, there is still a trickle of new sales, but it's the revenue from repeat business - the upgrades - that really keeps everything afloat.

This is precisely why software publishers are aggressively pushing "Web apps" and even universal thin clients again: it would guarantee no flakes who only pay once and then take the ball and go home. In a subscription model, people either pay them money every month/year, or they don't get to use the software, PERIOD. There's less accountability for bad design in that model.

Given the current software business model, it's VERY bad for business when customers hold developers accountable for mediocre upgrades and simply choose not to buy them. Amazingly, apparently a lot of people do in fact refuse, and hang onto their bucks until an upgrade is offered that provides features they actually want enough to pay for them. Don't believe me? Try asking Philippe Kahn about how it hurt his wallet when people ignored Borland's manic upgrades.

Re:Why should Microsoft care?

[Shados]

Not only they're making a profit during a recession, but they're making a profit during a recession even with all the bad publicity from Vista (while I love Vista, one cannot argue the bad reputation it has).

Thats something.

Re:The year of the Linux internet appliance

[Tweenk]

Backward compatibility is Windows' biggest strength - perhaps its only strength compared to the competition. And Linux will never have it, because it's creators don't want it, or don't understand why it's important, or just don't care.

1. This is just FUD spread by people who want to ship binary drivers for Linux. Application level compatibility is actually quite good. For example you can still run GTK 1.x apps on modern Gnome desktops.
2. Backward compatibility mostly matters for legacy proprietary apps. Since there aren't too many of those for Linux, this issue is not an important factor in Linux adoption.
3. Stable kernel ABI would actually be harmful for Linux, because manufacturers wouldn't be as willing to release open-source drivers. Right now they do mainly because it takes considerable manpower to maintain a closed-source driver.

Re:browser share declining very slowly

[HeronBlademaster]

I install Firefox and set it as the default browser on every new machine we get at my place of employment, and yet every few weeks I'll get an e-mail from someone having issues with a webpage - and it turns out they're using IE.

Some users, particularly older people, are scared of non-Microsoft software, even if said users are software developers themselves. No amount of "Company policy is that you should only use Firefox" convinces them otherwise.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't find it stunning at all ;)

Not a chance ...

[Anonymous Coward]

âoePeople of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantageâ - John Kenneth Galbraith

Re:The year of the Linux internet appliance

[Anonymous Coward]

Backwards compatibility is not a huge issue. Distro differences are not a huge issue. Configure and Make really takes care of most of it.

But yeah, it sucks for closed source. (The devs then has to do a ton of work that the distros could take care of.)The Gnu/Linux ecology is based upon source being available.

So, should we change to attract closed source apps?

Yep

[Sycraft-fu]

Open source, when used to mean GPL style OSS, means that it will be free, like it or not. You are perfectly welcome to charge for it, however the first person who buys it can redistribute it freely. Thus you can't make money selling software.

An observant person will note that RedHat doesn't make money selling software, they sell support. Likewise other companies in the Linux market make it not on software, but in other ways. When Linksys used Linux on their routers, the money was made on the hardware, not on the software.

So OSS forces the software to be free. You have to find a different model for making money.

Re:... or release Office on MacOS/Linux

[shutdown -p now]

all the appz work the same as their pc counterparts

Not quite. For example, the most recent release has no VBA support.

Re:The year of the Linux internet appliance

[Anonymous Coward]

"Backwards compatibility only matters legacy proprietary apps"

Legacy proprietary applications are exactly the problem. No one (note: exaggerated) wants to change. That's just the way things are, and when the legacy proprietary application that Joe Schmoe wants to use isn't available on Linux, he won't switch.

People on Slashdot always seem to act like it's no big deal to drop an OS and move on, but for a huge portion of the population (something in that 70% of IE users out there) there's no reason to move on.

What they have works. It may not work well, but they'll be damned to spend a few weeks relearning it because there's no motivation. Why should they move on? Will their computer stop working? Will those proprietary legacy applications stop working? No, and the new version of windows, 4 times out of 5, will let them reinstall all those old programs again, something that linux won't ever easily do (WINE isn't easy, don't kid yourselves).

Price IS important

[Anonymous Coward]

I recycle old computers for various social organizations that dont have any money and money IS important to them, just like it is for the people who come to the food bank where I work on weekends.
Money is not important to you but in many countries it is. Heck, in your own country it is.

Just this winter, I had a single mother of two whose kids go at my son's school ask me about the costs of software since she heard I knew computers. She told me she could afford a second hand computer but that the prices of Windows, Office and Norton more than she can budget for. I let her use my backup laptop for a week to see how she liked OO instead of Office on her laptop and she was amazed that for $120 I was able to find her an Intel 2.66Ghz desktop that would run Gnu-Linux nicely.
She's not poor by any stretch but she still has to count her money carefully and a few hundred bucks is a big deal.

Try to think of people who arent in your financial situation when you say no one looks at price or cost.
We do pretty well but I hate spending money when I dont have to.

Re:The year of the Linux internet appliance

[Rob Y.]

You keep missing my point - intentionally, I think. I want Apple to *have* to port iTunes to Linux. Do you think they *wanted* to port it to Windows?

And if a third-party effort was superior to Apple's, well they we're all free to use it. In fact, I *do* use Amarok to access my iPod when I'm running Linux. I just don't use it to update the iPod, since at one point I read that that could render it unusable. And don't bother pointing me to the workaround for that - I can find it if I need to. That's not my point.

Mandatory Quicktime? Who said anything about manditory or Quicktime? Or using it if it *were* installed?

My point - for the third time - Linux could easily surpass Mac0S in marketshare, except that nobody's seriously pursuing it. And that's fine. Just shut up about the 'year of the Linux desktop' if you're actively working against it. And if you don't realize you're actively working against it, that's just sad.

What is the Author smoking?

[w0mprat]

It'd be a really really bad idea to release the source code for the most widely attacked OS. Considering it is already heavily under attack from hackers because of its ubiquity (and er vunerability) it would be a worldwide security disaster to release source code on top of that. Microsoft is already rather slow to patch even with tight control of code and spec.

What you first need is the coding community to maintain it. This is rather the reverse of software that has emerged from OSS circles rather than been thrown to it as is (which is fine for a company abandoning something that is still Good but not Profitable). I don't think the author really grasps this amongst all the other rather obvious challenges he fails to address that face moving a completely proprietary stack to a free licence.

It's nice to imagine Windows being free as in beer, but beer really isn't free unless you steal it or brew it yourself.

Micorosft does not understand open source

[Orion Blastar]

nor will they ever. The best you can do is ask Microsoft to open up every API call that Windows XP and below uses so that WINE and ReactOS can be made to support more API calls to be more compatible with Windows XP and people can write their own open source Windows XP compatible operating system while Microsoft moves on to Windows 7.0 8.0 9.0 using new undocumented API calls.

Why Microsoft won't open source Windows, it is not in their business plan. Microsoft is experimenting with open source with smaller projects to see if they can profit from smaller open source projects.

Microsoft still wants Windows pre-loaded with most PCs sold so that they can keep their OS Monopoly via those OEM contracts. They bundle MS-Office, Internet Explorer, Media Player, MSN Network client, Windows Live services, etc with each pre-loaded PC. This is all part of Microsoft's business plan and it works so well that they dominate marketshare and got the DOJ and EU angry at them for pre-loading software and shutting out competitors.

Unless Microsoft can figure out a new business plan that makes money off open sourced Windows, I really doubt they will go that route. ReactOS is your best bet at a Windows XP/2003 compatible open source OS, or use WINE with Linux.

Re:The year of the Linux internet appliance

[Rob Y.]

1. This is just FUD spread by people who want to ship binary drivers for Linux. Application level compatibility is actually quite good. For example you can still run GTK 1.x apps on modern Gnome desktops.

If GNOME has that level of compatibility, kudos to them.

2. Backward compatibility mostly matters for legacy proprietary apps. Since there aren't too many of those for Linux, this issue is not an important factor in Linux adoption.

So backward compatibility doesn't matter, because there are no proprietary apps, because there isn't backward compatibility... Fun.

3. Stable kernel ABI would actually be harmful for Linux, because manufacturers wouldn't be as willing to release open-source drivers. Right now they do mainly because it takes considerable manpower to maintain a closed-source driver.

Finally the truth slips out. We don't want stable API's, because we don't want closed source code. Okay. So then say it. We don't want 'the year of the Linux desktop'. Or not enough to compromise ideological purity.

Sure. Open source drivers are definitely better than closed-source ones. But there are better ways to coax device makers along than by making their lives miserable when they actually *want* to support Linux. Like actually gaining enough marketshare so that they *really, really* want to support Linux...