Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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
The world is moving away from x86 arch
Like Apple did?
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.
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.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
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.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
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.
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.
Find free books.
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.
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.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
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.
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.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
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?
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
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."
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
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.
Load New Commander (Y/N)?
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.
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.
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.
Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
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 ;)
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.
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.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
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...
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...