Microsoft Engineer: Open Source Windows Is 'Definitely Possible'

An anonymous reader writes: Speaking at ChefCon, Microsoft Technical Fellow Mark Russinovich talked briefly about the prospect of some or all of Windows going open source. He said, "It's definitely possible. It's a new Microsoft." Russinovich acknowledged the reality that most developers and IT workers have embraced open source software to run some or all of their machines, and that means Microsoft needs to adapt. He also noted that Microsoft is beginning to adopt a strategy familiar to open source vendors: give away the software, and then sell support and related products. "It lifts them up and makes them available for our other offerings, where otherwise they might not be. If they're using Linux technologies that we can't play with, they can't be a customer of ours."

Comments

Looks at Calendar

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay so it's NOT April 1st anymore...WOW

Why not?

[BarbaraHudson]

If they're using Linux technologies that we can't play with,

Anyone can "play with" Linux.

Re:Why not?

[Junta]

His point being that to the extent that 'Open Source' plays a fundamental role in a large client's It strategy, the classic MS moves aren't going to give them access to those markets. This has more relevance to products like Office, Visual Studio, Azure, and so on and less about Windows itself really.

That said, it's generally less about the freedom and more about preferred software behavior and/or cheaper. Stamping 'open source' on .Net isn't going to change the fortunes much for better or worse for those that don't use it, though it defuses one of the arguments techies might use to sway their CIOs to try out some alternatives.

Re:Why not?

[RavenLrD20k]

Come on, do better than that. Of course any individual can play with Linux all they want. We're not talking individual here. We're talking a behemoth corporation with long standing corporate policies and a legal department dictating licensing on what the collective can use on a day to day basis with an auditing department to enforce them and an onsite security team to give personal escort service to those who break those policies. It's highly doubtful that they would have authorization to "play" with Linux on their systems arbitrarily without first having a policy change coming from above.

As an example I work for a company that only has Windows installed on its workstations, you think I can wipe its hard drive and put my favorite Linux Distro on it so I can "play" with it here while using it to build .NET programs for the business? Not unless I want to have a personal escort carrying me out of the building 2 minutes later. In the 3 years I've worked here, we've lost 2 employees this way.

So the engineer is right. If the customer is using Linux technologies that the Microsoft Employees cannot by corporate policy play with - and by extension provide professional support - then they can't be a customer of Microsoft... unless there's a major policy change that comes down the pipe from above.

Re:Why not?

[frank_adrian314159]

In the 3 years I've worked here, we've lost 2 employees this way.

Well, if you haven't noticed yet, your employer's doing something wrong. You need to give developers a bit more freedom if you want decent bits.

Re:Why not?

[BarbaraHudson]

Or they can pull and apple / playstation 4 and go with FreeBSD.

Re:Why not?

[RavenLrD20k]

Name one long standing large company where I can install arbitrary software on a whim on company owned hardware without at least getting a dirty look from auditing? There's freedom, then there's being an idjit. Personally, I'd rather use the considerable income I get from following the company's rules to be able to buy all the toys I want to use in my time that's not bought and paid for by the company. Maybe sometime soon I'll have enough extra money from playing by someone else's rules that I can stop doing that and then come up with my own rules to play by.

Re:Why not?

[Junta]

Which won't by them anything.. They throw out their singular primary advantage (backwards compatibily for decades of application) for.... well actually not much of anything. The Linux kernel can do tricks that Windows kernel cannot, but in the scheme of things not something that will boost MS revenue. The BSD kernels are already roughly at the same functional level, so no new function from that area.

It made sense for Apple because they had only their classic OS which was clearly ill-equipped in fundamental ways and it let them skip the investment of doing it from scratch. MS had already spent that money, so they don't get to skip anything.

If MS started doing a linux distro, it probably would do more harm than good. Distrusted by the target market with a value add that would probably amount to making it easier to manage linux *like* windows, but at that point why not just run Windows? I'd personally be more swayed by the ability to muck about with Windows in the same style as linux, but I recognize that would be a bad idea for Windows.

Re:Why not?

[Junta]

No company permits 'arbitrary' software. Many companies do trust the employees to understand licensing and 'play with' free software. They generally have an education course on how to find licensing terms and to read the license more deeply for signs of 'commercial use clauses' and what GPL means versus BSD and so on and so forth.

IBM doesn't bat an eye when if an employee puts Fedora on a company asset. They have your ass if you put any open source code into any product without legal review, and also if you use a partner's source code and contribute anything open source based on that. So yes, a long standing large company that is very very very careful about software licensing will go along with it.

Not all 'playing with' is for personal gain. Some of it enables advancing your companies agenda/saving costs/etc. I would not use my personal resources for exploring things that would advance my company without much gratification for me on a personal level.

Re: Why not?

[spongman]

I dual-booted slackware with Linux 0.97-pl2 on my testing machine at Microsoft, and nobody gave a damn.

Re:Why not?

[david_thornley]

There are companies that do indeed permit people to install arbitrary software. Some employees use this freedom to try out software to recommend to others.

Re: Why not?

[ExEm2SS]

Microsoft isn't most companies, though.

Re:Why not?

[frank_adrian314159]

I don't know... Maybe it's because I worked in a security company. But we did have engineering networked off from anything having to do with the rest of the company, the virus labs were air-gapped (and electronic memory gapped, too, as many a demolished cell phone and flash drive could attest to), and we didn't tend to keep idjits around. But most of the normal software engineering teams I've been on have had wide latitude to install stuff - mainly because waiting for IT to do/approve ANYTHING usually took too long. And, now that I'm a contractor, nobody bitches about what I have on my laptop.

Re:Why not?

[Junta]

'arbitrary' in my view includes 'free for non-commercial use' and even less kosher licensing terms for use without paying. I was thinking that way as he referenced 'dirty look from auditing', which I took to mean an assumption that software is being used against copyright/licensing allowances.

I was perhaps too guarded in trying to explain that blind firing of people for using Linux is almost certainly not a good practice but accepting that companies do have to worry about employees doing 'arbitrary' things without appreciating the nuance of the terms of the 'free' (as in beer) software they are using.

Re:Why not?

[RavenLrD20k]

Never underestimate the power of the Boardroom; or Legal for that matter. This guy can be the absolute Top go-to of his division; if the board says that nothing gets used without the legal ability to control the product, and Legal steps in and says there's not a viable way to provide Linux Support to customers without sacrificing some measure of this desired control over their Supported Product based on Licensing.

We're not talking installing Linux on a spare machine and saying "Ok, we now support Linux," as much as Barbara would have you believe Supporting Linux means developing programs and patches for Linux interoperability for their own software, which would require their licensing to coincide with Linux licensing and open sourcing...which Microsoft as a company is not quite mentally ready for it. Almost...It might get there, but Mr. Russinovich is just one strong voice among a collective of strong voices in how MS decides to go forward.

Re:Why not?

[yuhong]

Well, Apple once got Blue Box on NuKernel, which would have been a good starting point.

Re:Why not?

[shutdown -p now]

Name one long standing large company where I can install arbitrary software on a whim on company owned hardware without at least getting a dirty look from auditing?

Microsoft, ironically.

(This isn't to say that there aren't a bunch of policies surrounding it, but they mostly boil down to, if you're legally allowed to use it as an employee, it's okay. And it doesn't require an audit.)

Re:Why not?

[stoatwblr]

"blind firing of people for using Linux is almost certainly not a good practice"

It's cropping up more and more in companies which have been handed their asses for violating the GPL(*), instead of coming to terms with the fact that complying is quite easy.

(*) Or run by people who have been.

Re:Why not?

[ZeroWaiteState]

MIcrosoft is already running a bunch of stuff on Linux in the Azure cloud. They recognize they are a minority player in the cloud space and they have to leverage technology that was designed to scale to large core counts, something they didn't do much of in Redmond historically. I actually do foresee a Microsoft-spin of Linux. Oracle is actually worse than Microsoft in many ways (NIH syndrome), and they have their own Linux distro now. It's all server-side though, so don't expect a Microsoft Linux desktop, ever. New NoC hardware architectures may end up making the whole Linux vs NT thing moot anyway from a technology point of view.

BWAH HA HA HA HA HA

[mrflash818]

*thud*

-- The Princess Bride

Re:BWAH HA HA HA HA HA

[Anonymous Coward]

*thud*
-- The Princess Bride

Maybe I'm going senile, but I don't remember the princess dropping dead in that movie.

It was inevitible

[Ol Olsoc]

The concept of making money by selling an operating system is a 1990's idea.

It made Microsoft a lot of money at one time, but they are simply not the only game in town, and the software has matured enough that the concept of making hwolesale changes in look and feel both isn't enough, and too much to handle at the same time.

I get all my Operating systems free already, so using a Microsoft one is just an added and sometimes unpleasant expense.

Welcome to 2015 Microsoft, you might actually like it and do well here.

Re:It was inevitible

[fustakrakich]

embrace extend extinguish

Re:It was inevitible

[QuietLagoon]

The concept of making money by selling an operating system is a 1990's idea. It made Microsoft a lot of money at one time...

The question in my mind is whether there is enough money in the "other services" to support the huge, bloated corporation we know as Microsoft?

.

If I were a Microsoft employee, I'd begin looking to restart my career somewhere else.....

Re:It was inevitible

[BoRegardless]

Interesting that Bill Gates' friend Warren Buffett came to the same conclusion back in the 1990s, and that was why he said he wouldn't invest in MS, as he could see the long term profit in selling OS software.

Re:It was inevitible

[MrTester]

What Ive been hoping for is that they would actually go the other way...

For the past 20 years they have been selling "upgrades" to the interface and oh-by-the-way here are some changes to the OS.
If they unlinked the two they could license the OS, an interface API and a bare bones default Windows interface.

There was a time when the idea of Apple using the same Intel processors as most PCs would have been inconceivable. Its not that far of a stretch to think that Apple would have gone a step further and used a Microsoft OS to drive their Mac interface.

Microsoft could have continued far longer as the dominant OS even if Windows was the minority interface.

Re: It was inevitible

[Anonymous Coward]

Warren Bufet avoids all technology stocks, nothing personal against MS.

Re:It was inevitible

[Junta]

The concept of making money by selling an operating system is a 1990's idea. It made Microsoft a lot of money at one time

That 'one time' is basically from their inception to today. MS revenue in the industry is only behind Apple and IBM. Their biggest money makers continue to be Windows and Office. Windows 8.1, generally cited as MS's failure and antiquated approach compared to Apple 'giving away' OSX (including updates with hardware purchase really) has a larger market share than all the other desktop platforms combined, despite those being 'free' and Windows costing money. Their 'failure' is massively more successful than the competition.

I'm stuck using it due to work and get pissed at it so much and really appreciate using a Linux desktop platform more, but I'm not so deluded as to ignore the market realities. MS isn't going to open source windows (in fact it really can't, there's too much third party cross-licensing deals) and it won't even 'give it away' except under confusing situations that ensure their bread and butter revenue source is protected (for the 'life of the product', not clarifying speculation that they are going subscription, pirates get free upgrade, but still not 'genuine', so really nothing changed).

Re:It was inevitible

[Zerth]

Right now they could just rename that piece of cardboard/sticker they give you from "Operating System License" to "Support Customer Number" and every company I have worked for would keep on buying, with nothing else changing.

Re:It was inevitible

[Ol Olsoc]

embrace extend extinguish

Yeah, that worked at one time. But as Microsoft has become just another player, playing nice full time might just be a better way.

The days of people buying new computers every two years are over, except for a few. The whole operating system paradigm has shifted so much that trying to rely on people constantly upgrading it just doesn't work any more. Especially since the Microsoft world has been bred towards cheapness. There are a lot of computers out there running XP yet, on functioning computers, and doing work. That's insane, but that's the crop you get when people are inculcated to avoid Apple because you might have to pay a little more. The best example I ever saw was in a local netnews for sale group when a full blown physical threat bitchwar broke out over a 5 cent difference in price.

Then there is the matter of Pressure to give something new to people when you charge them for OS upgrades. I suspect that the ribbon and especially metro would never have seen the light of day if Microsoft didn't feel the need to justify somechangeanychange worldview. Which is a dangerous thing once you get a lot of people using your system.

Apple, for all of the changes it has incorporated over the years, if you set a person down who was using an old Toaster Mac from the 90's at a computer running Yosemite, they would be able to get around and do their work. You cannot say the same for Windows 3.1 or 95 to W8. Considering that Apple had switched processors and even the underlying system base it's even a better example. And if for some reason, they really wanted the spawn of hell metro interface, Launchpad is there, just a click away, no OS modifications or third party software needed.

But I digress. Going from their let's make money on the OS to a more sustainable business model is a good thing. I like it. I think it will help them in the long run, where they can get people to buy software to do stuff with, stuff that if you want to do it, you go to Microsoft to get it.

Re: It was inevitible

[dugancent]

Smart man.

Re:It was inevitible

[DogDude]

If you think that Microsoft makes most of it's money from selling OS's, then you're woefully uninformed. I spend a lot of money with Microsoft, and it's not on OS's.

Re: It was inevitible

[nanoflower]

Simply sticking to what he knows. He doesn't really understand technology so he isn't in a good position to judge what will succeed. So he stays away from it and stick with things like consumables that he can fully understand and see if it is likely to succeed like Kraft foods.

Re:It was inevitible

[Anonymous Coward]

Its Mark Russinovich he wrote sysinternals, he is pretty high up and well known and loved by windows sys admins

Re:It was inevitible

[Ol Olsoc]

The question in my mind is whether there is enough money in the "other services" to support the huge, bloated corporation we know as Microsoft?

It will require a massive undertaking to slow,stop,and turn around that ship. But I don't think there is much choice. I look at Windows 8 as the last gasp of the old paradigm. And it failed miserably, nearly destroying the PC market along with it.

There are just too many other choices today. ChromeOS for the casual user, at a price point that gets people to try one just on a lark. The Unix-like OS', Linux and OS X, which function very well. Even Microsoft Office, which I haven't used since about a year after th eribbon was introduced, and one of the Open Office suites gets installed on any computer I have anything to do with. No ribbon, consistent interface and operation.

I think you are right. Microsoft will be making some big changes if they want to survive.

This is a good thing, while disruptive in the short term, in the long term, it keeps the company around.

Re:It was inevitible

[Ol Olsoc]

How many fedora tips or neck beards were involved in writing that post.

Do not use Fedora. I use OS X, Linux Mint, Chrubuntu, and Lubuntu. One laptop running Vista. Had another running W8 then 8.1 but now running Mint. No neckbeard either. More a well trimmed Goatee.

But enough about me.

So do you just have gratuitous and incorrect insults to throw around, or would you care to refute anything I posted?

Re: It was inevitible

[Ol Olsoc]

Oh yes, brilliant man, MS was trading for about a buck a share in 1990, now it's about $40.

Only on Slashdot is an anonymous coward smarter than Warren Buffet. Thanx for the lulz.

Re:It was inevitible

[BarbaraHudson]

You cannot say the same for Windows 3.1 or 95 to W8.

Absolutely not true. You can make the desktop the default when you log in instead of that gimpy tile interface.

Re:It was inevitible

[Anonymous Coward]

Right now they could just rename that piece of cardboard/sticker they give you from "Operating System License" to "Support Customer Number" and every company I have worked for would keep on buying, with nothing else changing.

Absolutely agree. Rivals could try to provide Windows support, like Red Hat does for Linux. But even with lower cost and better service, it would be tough to compete with the entrenched behemoth. Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft.

Re:It was inevitible

[Ol Olsoc]

That 'one time' is basically from their inception to today. MS revenue in the industry is only behind Apple and IBM. Their biggest money makers continue to be Windows and Office. Windows 8.1, generally cited as MS's failure and antiquated approach compared to Apple 'giving away' OSX (including updates with hardware purchase really) has a larger market share than all the other desktop platforms combined, despite those being 'free' and Windows costing money.

Congratulations on taking years of history and condensing everything into one moment in time - the present.

Do you believe that since Microsoft is at present, the big dog, that it was and always will be, world without end, amen? Because your history shuffle indicates that you do. Microsoft's ascendency was based upon computers invading the coprorate environment, and growth like that isn't going to happen again. Those heady years where new and better computers and OS' were coming out and the advantages outweighed the depreciation schedules were more an anomaly than how things were going to operate in the future. And don't forget that my wife's laptop, which came with W8, but she hated so much, and is now running Linux Mint, is one of the computers considered to be running Windows 8. So I take those numbers with very large grain of salt.

Finally - and only my own situation - a private person with 10 or so computers, an upgrade on all to say W8.1 pro is pretty significant, and when compared to the free upgrade on a 10 computer OSX system, makes those damn expensive Macs look a lot more competitive.

Which is my point, I could care less in the end how many people are using the same computer as I am. We should be way beyond the Fords versus Chevies outlook by this time.

Re:It was inevitible

[Ol Olsoc]

If you think that Microsoft makes most of it's money from selling OS's, then you're woefully uninformed. I spend a lot of money with Microsoft, and it's not on OS's.

Pay attention. Could you show me where I wrote anything like that?

Try this one on. If Microsoft gives it's OS away for free, then people are likely to spend more on those Microsoft products that you use. That make sense muchacho?

Re:It was inevitible

[DickBreath]

Get them to use it under a true open source license, and then sue them for patent infringement! It may turn out to be a growth industry, or at the very least a new business model for some. But one would have to choose an open source license that doesn't deal with the subject of patents.

Re:It was inevitible

[Ol Olsoc]

You cannot say the same for Windows 3.1 or 95 to W8.

Absolutely not true. You can make the desktop the default when you log in instead of that gimpy tile interface.

You know, I've heard this one a lot here on slashdot. Problem is, there are things you have to go to metro for. like metro apps. And you can't put metro apps to the desktop.

Re:It was inevitible

[stooo]

>>Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft.
Nobody got fired for using Linux either.

Re:It was inevitible

[jmac_the_man]

The FSF is against "open source software." They're for "free software," which is what the GPL gets you. BSD Licenses generally get you "open source software."

The disticton is that Free Software licenses force developers of derivative works to license under a Free Software license. Open Source licenses do not.

I'm on a cell phone, so I'm not going to link you to Stallman's essay on the difference, but some rudimentary Googling will find it if you don't think I'm treating the FSF's position fairly.

Distributing source code under BSD licenses is bad for the GPL.That's wildly different from bad for Free as in Speech distribution of source code.

Re:It was inevitible

[DamonHD]

Both probably untrue.

Rgds

Damon

Re:It was inevitible

[TheRaven64]

The FSF is against "open source software." They're for "free software," which is what the GPL gets you. BSD Licenses generally get you "open source software." The disticton is that Free Software licenses force developers of derivative works to license under a Free Software license. Open Source licenses do not.

Please stop repeating this. The FSF is for Free Software, defined as software that respects the FSF's Four Freedoms. These are respected by the BSD licenses and any other FSF approved license (of which there were around 20-30 last time I checked). Many of them are GPL incompatible.

I'm on a cell phone, so I'm not going to link you to Stallman's essay on the difference, but some rudimentary Googling will find it if you don't think I'm treating the FSF's position fairly.

Since I'm not too lazy, I'll do you a favour and link to where the BSD license is on the FSF's list of GPL-Compatible Free Software Licenses.

Re:It was inevitible

[david_thornley]

Free software and Open Source software is almost indistinguishable. The criteria for Free and Open Source licenses are, in practice, almost identical.

You're looking for the distinction between what rms calls "copyleft" and "non-copyleft". The GPL is a copyleft license, because it ensures that all derivative works are also Free software, but the BSD licenses aren't.

The actual movements are different. Free Software is a social movement, while Open Source software promotes itself as a development methodology (although there's a lot of respect for the original Free Software ideas in practice).

There's also a distinction between Free Software principles and Free Software tactics. rms is in principle in favor of all Free software, but would much rather that the main stuff was GPLed, and considers llvm and clang to be a loss to the movement.

Seriously, you can read up on this stuff on gnu.org. rms writes fairly well, briefly and making points, so you'll find it easy to understand his positions, whether or not you agree with him.

Re:It was inevitible

[Art3x]

--- 1   2015-04-03 14:03:43.000000000 -0500
+++ 2   2015-04-03 14:04:15.000000000 -0500
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
The concept of making money by selling an operating system is a 1990's idea.
It made Microsoft a lot of money at one time, but they are simply not the only
game in town, and the software has matured enough that the concept of making
-hwolesale changes in look and feel both isn't enough, and too much to handle at
+wholesale changes in look and feel both isn't enough, and too much to handle at
the same time.

Re:It was inevitible

[Ol Olsoc]

With third party software or in Windows 10 you can.

I know. Windows 10 will be the best Windows ever - like all the rest of them. I'm hoping it will be actually be better.

Re:It was inevitible

[mu51c10rd]

The days of people buying new computers every two years are over, except for a few. The whole operating system paradigm has shifted so much that trying to rely on people constantly upgrading it just doesn't work any more.

That's not true. They just make you upgrade your hardware every 2 years instead of software (phones, tablets, etc.).

Re:It was inevitible

[Ol Olsoc]

1990's? Then why does Apple continue to charge at least once a year if not more for their OS updates?

Don't let your preconceived notions stand in the way of the truth. I can't even remember when I paid for a Mac update

I definitely haven't paid for Leopard, Snow Leopard, Mavericks, or Yosemite. They tell me when they are ready to install it for me, I install it, and move on. You get your Microsoft updates back to Vista for nothing?

Seriously you should check out reality before spewing that shit.

Re:It was inevitible

[Junta]

My point is that while the present isn't indicative of the future, neither can we extrapolate relatively small percentage shifts into inevitable conclusions of the market reality. I'm not exactly enthusiastic about Microsoft, but I'm fatigued in general how technology reporting sees *anything* go from 0.1% to 0.2% and then starts going crazy proclaiming the eventual domination of the market by that thing because it *GREW 200% Year to YEAR!!!*. Also playing it the other way when something goes from 90% of a billion person market to 89.9% share and declaring that 'it's doomed because over a MIILION users have moved away from it'.

I really like some of those niche players, but it's just tiresome pretending they'll be something they are not. Frankly, if Mint had MS market share, I'd suspect it wouldn't be nearly as well suited a platform for it's current users as it is now, so people shouldn't get too excited about 'winning' users away from MS.

I know you said that you don't care, this rant was less directed toward you specifically. Just the statement that oh once upon a time MS made money at OS sales, but that's sooo 90s just seemed a sample of making a pretty dire assessment of a business that's overwhelmingly on top still.

Re:It was inevitible

[Ol Olsoc]

.

I really like some of those niche players, but it's just tiresome pretending they'll be something they are not.

Then that doesn't have a thing to do with my initial premise, that is that it would be a good thing for Microsoft to release their OS the same way as everyone else does. I'm not talking about niuches, I'm not talking about installed user base, I'm not talking about any of that stuff.

I have no interest at all in market share by platform. My computers are tools that suit my use, not badges of popularity.

Just the statement that oh once upon a time MS made money at OS sales, but that's sooo 90s just seemed a sample of making a pretty dire assessment of a business that's overwhelmingly on top still.

Let me make this perfectly clear, I don't give a damn who is on top. If you want to try to impress that on me again, I'll just figure you are arguing past me.

My premise is that it would be a good idea to release their OS like everyone else does. Is Microsoft on top because you have to pay for their new OS releases, Is that why they are your overwhelming favorite, and is charging for an OS, the secret to your metric of critical market share?

Or do we take your approach that everything that Microsoft does is perfect, because they are "on top now"?

Andyhow, I suspect that I'll be saying this, and you'll keep yakking about market share. So unless you want to address whether or not Microsoft would do well to release their OS free, then get users to use other software and hardware products they make, I'll just assume you're someone who is still in the Fords versus chevies mindset, and give that all the attention it deserves. Market share is all well and good, but it can change. Wanna talk about IBM? When I got into computers they were not only king, but I once had to buy IBM computers. Today?

But I'm done discussing market share because I don't care. So reply if you want to talk about my real premise, or if you want, have the last word, and beat that market share drum loudly once again, and I'll ignore it.

Re:It was inevitible

[david_thornley]

Microsoft is facing real competition in the personal computer OS market, from Android and iOS. They still dominate the desktop/laptop market, but that's a bit shaky. There's a tendency towards Web apps, and those are normally platform-agnostic, and the falling cost of good hardware is forcing the price of Windows down. I believe Microsoft Office is a safer franchise, but recently Microsoft has been extending Office to more platforms, allowing Android and iOS users to use Office.

Microsoft Windows will be around for a long time, but it's never going to reclaim its former dominance.

Re:It was inevitible

[Junta]

I guess it comes down to 'it would be a good idea to release their OS like everyone else does'. The question is in what sense and for whom? It could be good for consumers (maybe, though it would diminish even further the chances they would try out an alternative platform that would be better for them than Windows), maybe good from 'the way the world *should* work'. It could be good for companies like Lenovo, Dell, HP, etc as their costs go down and therefore they can price lower. It's not a good idea for Microsoft as a business though. It doesn't have much potential financial upside for them and represents sacrificing a boatload of their revenue. They already are doing precisely what you prescribe in mobile/tablets because they felt they had to, but taking it further in a general just wouldn't make a lot of financial sense. The exceptional case may be upgrades, I suspect MS suffers pretty high costs supporting older editions to try to get people to spend money on upgrades. That said, 8->8.1 was a free upgrade and 8 was considered horrible, and even so about 30% of the 8 users never bothered to do the 8.1 update, so there may be no good answer for how they could mitigate their costs without a risk of decreasing likelihood of upgrade-by-buying-new-device as an unintended consequence..

The point about share is that it continues to be the case in *SPITE* of being the more expensive option (though admittedly most of their users don't get direct control over giving them money). I don't say the secret to their share is charging, it's just that they manage to get away with charging even when free alternatives exist. It only becomes a 'good' idea from a business perspective if they are under some competitive threat that would force their hand to do what everyone else has been forced to do. That threat just doesn't exist, so they'd be trading current revenue stream for a relatively meaningless small bump in mindshare. I'm not going to enjoy this crappy OS more just because it's free, I'm still going to prefer Linux (not much chance of them making inroads into *THAT* 3.4% of the market no matter what). For consumers the cost of their OS license is already hidden in the system purchase, so they don't even give a single thought to all of this.

The business side is interesting and highly dependent on circumstances. While it makes little sense for MS to go free-as-in-beer for Windows, it makes a ton of sense for RedHat to more prominently promote free-as-in-beer use of their platform as they rapidly lost hearts and minds to Canonical. While they are being better about it (they used to go out of their way to make life tough for projects like CentOS) they are still being peculiar about it (CentOS v. RHEL instead of just 'RHEL for free'), but they are under pretty serious threat to their credibility as people selecting Ubuntu dilutes their image as 'the' authoritative Linux company. Here RH gives up the fantasy that they'll extract revenue from large chunks of the market, but protects their image. MS just doesn't have this problem. On the desktop, they have a lock. On the server their fortunes aren't so nice, but their platform is *SO* different it's unlikely to convince people to change one way or another.

I'm not saying MS is best or knows best or makes the best products. I'm just ignoring the technology and focusing on the chances MS would go along with such a plan based on current business realities and assessing how 'foolish' or not they are being by charging for their offering.

Re:It was inevitible

[Junta]

Well for one, it's true that mobile devices play an increasing role in computing for the masses. Microsoft also has nearly zero mindshare for that market. I'm personally skeptical of any of their endeavors reversing that, but even in theory I don't see how any thing they do in desktops and laptops helps or detracts from their relevance to mobile at this point. Given they already give away their platform for the sake of boosting Bing and friends in those markets, nothing really changes.

I also want to express that contrary to a widespread belief, mobile form factor isn't going to completely replace laptops, due to simple human factors issues. So one of the worst things for MS to do would be to piss away their relevance to laptops chasing mobile. That said Windows 8 showed exactly how hard MS could work to do precisely that and still not get particularly penalized in the market.

Finally the 'tendency toward web apps' does not automatically make something particularly useful for both mobile and laptop. Even for those that are adaptive, the mobile sites frequently suck because there simply isn't enough real estate on mobile devices to provide an adequate experience. I do however appreciate how IOS and Apple re-popularized the concept of providing dedicated purpose-driven apps, though disappointed so many of them are just the Mobile web site 'app'-ified. Browsers make for far better run time environments than they used to be, but still significantly lag traditional applications given roughly equivalently naive developers.

Re:It was inevitible

[Ol Olsoc]

I guess it comes down to 'it would be a good idea to release their OS like everyone else does'. The question is in what sense and for whom?

Now we're talking. Here's my take. My background story is this.

I think it's pretty much a given that Operating systems are past the stage of massive innovation. I won't say nothing big and new will come along, but I doubt we are going to see anything like the DOS to Windows 3, the Windows 3 to Windows 95 transition, then the more refined world of XP. We were starting to get shaky whne Vista came out. Huge driver problems, Machines that were rated for Vista that were no where near powerful enough to run Vista, but worked just fine on XP. Windows 7 was pretty much a fix for Vista. That should have been a warning, and it started a allowing lot of people to have the idea of riding XP until they couldn't any more. But it was to me at least, showing that Microsoft was trying to capture lightning in a bottle again, in the same manner as XP did. They were looking to come up with a game changer. They were trying to invent a better wheel.

Then Metro and W8. There were people begging them to not produce that nasty bit of crap, but they didn't listen.

This isn't to say that W8 doesn't work. It does. But if you think you are going to have to come up with wholly different ways to do the same thing, you have a tough job. If you are going to be charging people for your OS, you probably don't want the people you are taking consultation from to beg you not to release what they tried out. It better make something easier, better, faster Personal computing has matured, and it's time to innovate in new directions. To my reasoning, charging for an OS makes as much sense as charging for the software that runs your Television or automobile, and neither will run without it.

So that's how we got to here.

As for the busiiness plan, Microsoft makes software, and some hardware. That's what they would do under the new paradigm, and that's what people would pay for. Office software - although that is pretty mature stuff too, but it seems like some other folks write software. I seem to recall a lot of stories of how there has been interesting innovation done at Microsoft that was just squashed by the previous regime. Imagine cool stuff coming from Microsoft

It could be good for consumers (maybe, though it would diminish even further the chances they would try out an alternative platform that would be better for them than Windows), maybe good from 'the way the world *should* work'.

I'm not so worried about switching from Microsoft as I am about having good solid software, and na OS that stays out of my way.

It could be good for companies like Lenovo, Dell, HP, etc as their costs go down and therefore they can price lower. It's not a good idea for Microsoft as a business though. It doesn't have much potential financial upside for them and represents sacrificing a boatload of their revenue.

I think that you aren't looking big picture. You're looking at what is already installed. To make my point, there is still a large percentage of computers out there that are still running XP. That isn't any money at all going to Microsoft. My belief is that the game is changing, and Microsoft can take your approach, and ride their paradigm the whole way down, or they can adopt a different one. Every company needs to reinvent itself. This isn't rocket surgery, it's what money is coming in now. What do the stockholders want - bragging about installed user base, how many people are running Vista Windows 7, or even XP, and saying "We're number one!". Or do they want revenue?

They already are doing precisely what you prescribe in mobile/tablets because they felt they had to, but taking it further in a general just wouldn't make a lot of financial sense.

I think that the forst sentence is appropriate, and makes the second correct only if they plan on making

Re:It was inevitible

[Ol Olsoc]

Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft.

Well, we wer told if a Vista machine showed up on the network, it wasn't going to be pretty.

Re: It was inevitible

[dugancent]

In 50 years, at best.

Re:It was inevitible

[shutdown -p now]

If I were a Microsoft employee, I'd begin looking to restart my career somewhere else.....

I'm a Microsoft employee. I'm actually ecstatic that for once we have leadership that gets it, all the way up to the very top. Yes, it's harder to compete, but milking a dying cow is also not a profitable business model long term, and leaves you basically jobless once the cow dies. The alternative is to go and aggressively seek opportunities. Is there risk involved? Sure, but so are rewards.

Re:It was inevitible

[stoatwblr]

"The concept of making money by selling an operating system is a 1990's idea."

MS has never made much money out of Windows. It's mostly a means to an end.

The _real_ moneyspinner has always been the office family.

Re:It was inevitible

[stoatwblr]

Once the hardware's "good enough" to run the software you want, the drive to keep "upgrading" goes away.

Phones and tablets have a limited physical lifespan, simply because of the abuse they take. It gets cheaper to replace than repair very quickly, especially when landfill android is cheap and has better performance than the flagships of 2-3 years ago.

At some point (and I suspect that it will be much sooner than it took in the desktop development cycle), people will be updating their devices because they're broken, not for software or style reasons.

Re:It was inevitible

[stoatwblr]

If a Vista or XP machine shows up on _my_ network it's going to find it can't talk to much (yes, they can be identified and yes they can be diverted into quarantine zones. Gotta love Packetfence)

Re:It was inevitible

[stoatwblr]

"milking a dying cow is also not a profitable business model long term"

Someone needs to explain that to Cisco.

Re:It was inevitible

[Ol Olsoc]

If a Vista or XP machine shows up on _my_ network it's going to find it can't talk to much (yes, they can be identified and yes they can be diverted into quarantine zones. Gotta love Packetfence)

Of course. But imagine being told that a few weeks after Vista's release.

Re:It was inevitible

[jmac_the_man]

Now that I'm in front of a keyboard, this is the Stallman essay I was referring to. It's titled "Why Open Source Misses the Point," and it's on the differences between BSD-style licensing and why he believes GPL-style licensing is better.

The actual BSD licenses being GPL compatible is a red herring. The reason they are GPL-compatible is because you can take that code and release it under a different license with different terms... such as the GPL. Contributions to the GPL version of the project then can't be licensed back into the original project. (Later BSD-style licenses have protections against this.)

Re:It was inevitible

[jmac_the_man]

I was on a phone when I posted that. This is the Stallman essay I had in mind when I posted. And while I disagree with him, I think I represented his points fairly.

Also, I don't see how:

There's also a distinction between Free Software principles and Free Software tactics. rms is in principle in favor of all Free software, but would much rather that the main stuff was GPLed, and considers llvm and clang to be a loss to the movement.

is different from

Distributing source code under BSD licenses is bad for the GPL. That's wildly different from bad for Free as in Speech distribution of source code.

Re:It was inevitible

[david_thornley]

Desktops and laptops aren't going away, but a large number of people are going to find tablets to be all they need. I don't think that's anywhere near peaked yet. (I'd much rather my mother-in-law had an iPad with keyboard instead of her old desktop.) Microsoft can continue to make gobs of money here, but they won't have the same dominant position they used to. Windows 8 didn't really hurt them because most people are still using Windows 7, and Windows 10 looks to be good. If they put out three bad OSes in a row, I think they'd suffer from that.

Web apps aren't necessarily a move towards tablets, but any platform can run a web app. As they get more powerful, Chromebooks and the like are going to become more popular. Microsoft could maintain market share by giving Windows away, but I'm not sure it's worth it.

We've long past the point where desktops and laptops were more powerful than most people needed. We're getting to the point where we can likely take the performance hit by running things as web apps on ARM for most purposes.

In 1980, IBM dominated the field, with mainframes, minis, and they were about to push into the micro market. There's still a lot of mainframes out there, and they hung on in the PC market for a long time, but they're no longer what they were. I think similar things are happening to Microsoft. Microsoft will remain a very profitable company as far as I can see, but their dominance is crumbling.

Re:It was inevitible

[david_thornley]

There is very little difference between Free software and Open Source software. The FSF is not against Open Source software. The FSF somewhat favors the Open Source movement, although recognizes its ideological differences.

GPL and BSD software is both Free and Open Source. You're still looking for the "copyleft" distinction.

Re:It was inevitible

[TheRaven64]

Now that I'm in front of a keyboard, this is the Stallman essay I was referring to. It's titled "Why Open Source Misses the Point," and it's on the differences between BSD-style licensing and why he believes GPL-style licensing is better.

And at no point does it say that BSD licenses are not Free Software.

The actual BSD licenses being GPL compatible is a red herring. The reason they are GPL-compatible is because you can take that code and release it under a different license with different terms... such as the GPL.

This is also not true. Unless you are the copyright owner, or have explicit permission of the copyright owner, you can not change a copyright license. You can combine BSDL and GPL'd code, because the GPL permits linking to code that does not impose any conditions that are not present in the GPL and only requires that the combined work have the conditions imposed by the GPL. You can maintain a BSDL source file inside a GPL'd project and share it with BSDL'd projects (the Linux kernel has a few files like this that are shared with *BSD, though increasingly they're dual licensing them GPL+BSDL, which is the stupidest idea ever because no one in their right mind would accept the GPL given the choice of accepting the BSDL on receipt of the code).

Engineers will say what engineers will say...

[Nrrqshrr]

Remember that part when Microsoft announced that there will be free upgrades to windows 10 for everyone, even pirated copies, and then boom, the next day some "clarifications" about the legitimacy of these upgrades were released? Same thing here.
The engi will say whatever he wants, the final decision is taken by accounting/legal departments and, yeah, they *love* open source stuff...

Re:Engineers will say what engineers will say...

[shutdown -p now]

What you're describing is how the "old Microsoft" worked. The "new Microsoft" is the one where a company lawyer comes to give a talk on F/OSS to an audience of several dozen engineers, and says things like "GPL is actually kinda cool, it's a neat hack" and "if you're inventing your own thing because you think we won't like the license, you're probably wasting time - come check with us first, you'll be surprised".

Hell, have you seen the sheer number of MS projects that have gone open source in the last year?

It's that damn cancer!

[duckintheface]

Steve Ballmer warned us that Linux was a cancer. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

Now the mothership itself in infected. Open source??? OMG. But really, if real programmers ever got their hands on Windows under a GPL, they would just strip out anything of value and add it to Linux. Really.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[bulled]

But really, if real programmers ever got their hands on Windows under a GPL, they would just strip out anything of value and add it to Linux. Really.

So that kernel would look remarkably like the one we have today :)

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[rgbatduke]

And who knows, maybe they'd add a radical "new" idea or two to Windows (just to enable playing games). Like, I dunno, multiple desktops. So you can have your Excel spreadsheet up on desktop 1 and WoW up in desktop 2 and switch with a keystroke when the boss comes in.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[duckintheface]

Exactly!

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[PRMan]

Maybe we could finally get some drivers for old hardware...

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[Anonymous Coward]

I can guarantee, Microsofts version of 'Open Source' , will differ quite vastly from what you or I consider as 'Open Source'. There business IS licensing models. It's certain, to a point, them being Open Source won't benefit you much at all.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[Lennie]

Steve Ballmer was talking about the GPL.

With open source they mean an open source license.

I really doubt they are talking about a free software license the GPL.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[binarylarry]

OR we could add Systemd to Windows in an unholy marriage of awful!

Winning!

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[ralphsiegler]

no, many of those drivers are under agreement with manufacturers, the source can't be released

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[Anonymous Coward]

W10TP has virtual desktops. :)

You can still try it out for free: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/preview-iso

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[Billly Gates]

In many ways GPL is compared to a more open BSD or MIT.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[nine-times]

Maybe, but what's wrong with that? Consider the hypothetical: What if Microsoft released Windows to the GPL, and other programmers took everything of use and moved it to Linux, and the result was better than Windows?

Microsoft could then just use Linux, with great compatibility with their other products and services. Nothing is lost.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[Billly Gates]

Windows may have it's flaws.

But the kernel is not one of them. I played with a Nokia Windows phone 8 for work on low end hardware where Android would be downright sluggish.

It was fast, bug free, and had no issues or reboots. It is the legacy code and a million services that give it a bad name. Windows 8.1 is a fast quick OS ... but with a terrible gui which is buggy.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[Daniel Hoffmann]

The GPL is essentially cancer for software licenses and that is by design.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[Billly Gates]

Have you used SystemD?

It is quick and wonderful. Only hate is from trolls who like to start flamewars which he is since he went on about VS and Apple and system administrators who do not want change and have thousand line rc filed which are really programs with logic and data together with nested if/else which reference other scripts in a unholy mess of thousands threads that boot at startup who see nothing wrong with that??

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[drinkypoo]

But really, if real programmers ever got their hands on Windows under a GPL, they would just strip out anything of value and add it to Linux. Really.

So, a proper NTFS driver. Is there anything else in there worth using which would actually be portable?

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't like systemd. Not because it is aweful, etc., but rather because it abandons the unix way of doing things that brought me to linux in the first place.
If I'm going to dislike the system I'm using, I may as well use windows, or preferable, Mac OS.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[BarbaraHudson]

Windows 10 has multiple desktops.

So did XP and every release since. You had to download it from Microsoft (included in Windows Power Tools, iirc).

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[Junta]

Android being sluggish is also not about the kernel. Linux kernel can deliver plenty fast.

Windows kernel is solid enough and all, but lacking a significant chunk of functionality that can be found in linux. Some of that is because it's in userspace in Windows, some of it is because Linux has been an R&D platform for academia for decades and thus has capabilities that MS wouldn't touch with a thousand foot pole as it represents work with about 0% chance for it affecting revenue and non-0% chance of it being a maintenance burden.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[phantomfive]

Most likely it would be used to create a really great Wine layer.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[jones_supa]

But Windows and Mac use a similar system (Service Host and LaunchD).

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[Junta]

Only hate is from trolls who like to start flamewars

No it really isn't. Yes there are things it brings to the table. Yes there are problems with some startup scripts. No systemd wasn't the only answer and some decisions that systemd cause real difficulties that come along for the ride along with the good.
-Binary log files as the primary strategy is not an absolutely necessary thing to acheive the desired end
-Service startup should degrade better when access to pid 1 is not possible
-Some software lost capability that could be done under SysV that deviates from the limited path set out by systemd (e.g. 'reload' and also services cannot begin startup until fully stopped, which messes with some software that negotiates handing over in-flight transactions).

I think that's the bulk of the things I can lay squarely at the feet of systemd/journald that causes me grief. I would be less bothered and optimistic that constructive feedback would get these issues addressed, but the way systemd is developed does not inspire confidence. There are other offenders that frustrate me in various ways (pulseaudio, network manager, d-bus, dconf), so systemd does get maligned for the same sort of stuff that others get away with.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[Junta]

What kills me is that their update check process sucks up over 2 GB of ram every damn day on my laptop. I have never seen any other platform's *updater* do anything remotely so peculiar. When I didn't have Windows forced on me, I respected it more and assumed they had made a solid product that just wasn't my cup of tea. However I have experienced that their products aren't nearly as well done as I thought they would be...

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[DickBreath]

Cancer is Microsoft's term for it. Intended to have negative meaning.

If you are in favor of open source it would be better to use a different word or phrase. Basically the GPL spreads freedom.

Laughter is contagious (a negative term). So maybe we should say laughter is a cancer? It is unfortunate that there are not more positive terms for things that spread and the ones we tend to fall back on are biological terms that have undesirable meanings: infectious, contagious, cancer, etc. Freedom is contagious -- when people don't have it and see it, they want it for themselves.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[jones_supa]

I'm not sure if the Windows NTFS driver is not terribly portable either...probably would need a lot of work to make it work with the Linux block layer.

But anyway, there's better SSD TRIM support in Windows: vectorized TRIM ranges, and TRIM integration also with volume level commands.[1]

Then there is GPU driver in userspace, which is a nice concept, although not portable really.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[DickBreath]

Some things in Windows would not be portable, but could be ported. Some (not me) would say that it would be a great advancement for humanity if all platforms could run IE 6 and ActiveX.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom is contagious -- when people don't have it and see it, they want it for themselves.

Really? explain the paradox of choice, then.

Also, explain the continued existence of the Middle East, most of Africa, and most of the western world's slow creep back towards invasive, paternalistic styles of government?

Yep, people just love their freedom. They love it so much they can't wait to give it away to the first person who promises them something. Don't even have to deliver... just promise.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[AqD]

an Windows driver emulation layer would benefit a lot.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[stooo]

We don't care about Software patents. Software patents apply only in the USA. For the rest of the world, they are irrelevant.

>>Exactly. GPL is just as bad
Why would GPL be bad ? The GPL world works. It gains users every day.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

Microsoft's tools for multiple desktops have always been pretty crappy. Howewer there were 3 party tools going back to NT4.

In fact, Borland even included something called Dashboard in Delphi 1 which worked with Win3.1 IIRC.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[bjwest]

It took MS how long to catch up in that regard? 40 years or so isn't that far behind.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[BarbaraHudson]

I remember that! Pretty cool. I miss the old Borland.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually always been there, just not exposed as an easy to find user feature. Basically that feature on Windows was about as user friendly as all of Linux.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[MightyMartian]

No one can force you to use the GPL. If you're using someone else's software that has been licensed under GPL, then yesz but then, that's not actually your software.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[david_thornley]

Technically, emacs is an interpreter for a version of Lisp optimized for text processing. It comes with various Lisp programs, including an editor, a mail client, and some games. Most people just use it for the default editor, but you can put another editor in it and continue to use it.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[david_thornley]

The various versions of the GPL are listed as Open Source licenses by the Open Source Initiative. With some really minor exceptions, a free software license is an open source software license and vice versa.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[Rufty]

The NT kernel is really nice and well designed. No, really. 256 levels for priority, pascal style strings so no buffer overruns and can handle zero. Security level rings (until GDI got shoved in, for speed reasons). The top level UI is kinda meh. And in between MFC/Win32/Win64/.NET/OLE/ATL/ETC. So imagine a sandwich, organic rye bread on the bottom, economy white bread on top and a thick paste of sludge from the sewage works at Fukushima in the middle.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[SleepyHappyDoc]

I rather expect Microsoft could find some leverage to use against manufacturers who don't want to release their driver source.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[TemporalBeing]

Windows 10 has multiple desktops.

So did XP and every release since. You had to download it from Microsoft (included in Windows Power Tools, iirc).

FYI - it's called Terminal Services. XP and every consumer release (e.g Vista, 7, 8, 10) are limited to only 2 logins simulaneously; while the server editions are limited to 5 out the gate, and more with sufficient CALs. But it's all based on their Terminal Services functionality that goes back to NT4; it just wasn't natively integrated until an SP for WinXP and Windows Server 2003 - prior to that it was an add-on or dedicated product (Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server Edition).

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[TemporalBeing]

I can guarantee, Microsofts version of 'Open Source' , will differ quite vastly from what you or I consider as 'Open Source'. There business IS licensing models. It's certain, to a point, them being Open Source won't benefit you much at all.

Yes, just look at the analysis of the licenses surrounding the Open Source .NET projects MS is running. An Open Source Windows wouldn't likely be any different.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[Junta]

In terms of IO and CPU scheduling, there exist configurations of the linux kernel with *HARD* real time guarantees. That has approximately zero relevance to desktops, so MS didn't bother developing that and most linux distros ship with those disabled anyway. WinCE might have had that, but I have heard their current Windows 8.1 kernel does not.

There are flat out crazy things you can do with networking in linux kernel space. Linux kernels drive some pretty hard core networking equipment. MS doesn't play in the market, and frankly could only break in in *theory* by giving away their work, so it's not in their best interest to bother. Virtualization has caused MS to implement *some* of those capabilities that they formerly ignored, but no where near everything.

I didn't say that functionality was necessarily relevant to what MS cares or should care about, just that the Linux kernel is a solid piece of technology that carries some fascinating features. The stuff Google puts on top of that stack, on the other hand... There's a good amount of room for improvement there.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[jordanjay29]

Don't worry, pretty soon the US will extend its long enforcement arm to your country, too.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[Billly Gates]

MacOSX left init in 2006 man.

Solaris left Init too. It is gone because it is not adaptive or event driven. This is not just because of performance at startup but because it makes a dynamic environment that respond to events such as a disk failing, hacking attempt, waking up on a different network etc.

In init you need to think of every possible action and every sub action in that action and write complicated scripted to get anything done.

It wasn't a problem in 1985 when RC was new when a Unix server had 50 programs at the most and did 1 thing and stayed in a computer room somewhere. A linux distro or a mac or even a modern server talking to virtualizers and serving traffic with thousands of programs is a different manner

Re: It's that damn cancer!

[jblues]

How dare they steal the name that OSX would be using 10 years later!

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[BarbaraHudson]

No, it gave 4 virtual desktops on the same machine, the same user, the same login session.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[toddestan]

Even if the drivers were closed source, it would still be a boon for projects like ndiswrapper.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[bingoUV]

Also, many good file systems are in Linux kernel tree, and many others can be compiled in. Windows kernel has poor choice of file systems.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[cmdr_tofu]

I believe that some video card manufacturers also released this sort of thing for Windows too. However, the feature has been around in the UNIX world for longer and there is at least some sort of consistency. I don't care if I have NVIDIA video or Intel video, I can have multiple desktops if I install olvwm which is essential an 80's product that still works fine today. I'm sure with Windows 8 you can find a solution, but you have to find a solution that didn't exist 5 or 10 years ago (well it did but it was a different solution).

My solution to the Windows desktop? Install virtualbox and use the desktop provided by Linux.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[lsatenstein]

Steve Ballmer warned us that Linux was a cancer. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

Now the mothership itself in infected. Open source??? OMG. But really, if real programmers ever got their hands on Windows under a GPL, they would just strip out anything of value and add it to Linux. Really.

Open source does not mean GPL!

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[doccus]

Do you really think they'd even be able to find the source buried inside all those colorful comments? Or maybe M$ would spend 5 years cleaning it up.. Also, er.. which windows ? The operating system? Or the graphical user interface? Moot point, really.IMHO, It WAS an April fool's.. just a late one. Precisely *what* percentage of Microsoft's revenue comes from Windows? 50%? 75% 95% Even if it was 10% i doubt that shareholders would stand for it, not even as an April fools joke....

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[ls671]

They will be bought up by Oracle by then. Remember that other company that tried to open source a version of their OS?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[stoatwblr]

Ther windows kernel is fairly solid. As you say it's all the cruft on top which is an issue, but the average dev or enduser can't strip all that cruft away.

The problem is that you're comparing kernels to OSes and they are different things.

The OS is everything that wraps around the kernel. Scarily enough there's a Debian port with a BSD kernel. Anything is doble if you want it.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[ZeroWaiteState]

GPL != Open Source. They would never release any part of Windows under GPL, ever. For an entertaining read, go over the licensing agreement for the new "open source" .NET core, and decide for yourself what is REALLY the cancer.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[TemporalBeing]

No, it gave 4 virtual desktops on the same machine, the same user, the same login session.

I'm familiar with the "power tool" that gave that, and it was buggy and caused XP to crash a lot. Yes, I used it, and it wasn't available for Win2k.

But at the same time,Terminal Services was available in XP which is how they enabled the multi-user mode for XP; no more than two of which could be RDP sessions, and they would log out each other and the local user. (Unlike in Windows Server where they can co-exist.)

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[TemporalBeing]

See http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[BarbaraHudson]

I never had it crash.

Re:It's that damn cancer!

[Devola]

Its already there.. SystemD is an imitation of MS Windows' svchost.

A non story...

[Junta]

MS has been doing a good job lately of saying things that are obviously non-committal (or seemingly committal but actually not when someone digs in and notes a complication and MS won't clarify).

This one goes extra far by conflating Linux open source and how it functions and therefore if Windows were open source, then migration from Linux would be a no-brainer. Of course without promising that but getting that into the 'hearts and minds'.

Of course, I have a hard time blaming them for this. The tech media has all but written eulogies for Windows and have painted MS as a company that is only barely relevant by way of Azure and related cloud services. Despite the fact that they earn about twice as much revenue as Google and their biggest money makers are *still* Windows and Office (by revenue and by an even wider margin by profit). However the story that MS is still one of the biggest tech companies and mostly because of the same stuff that made them big 20 years ago isn't such a sexy story. The revenue and margin on traditional Windows and Office are staggering. Traditional Office revenue dwarfs Office 365 and Office 365 is lower margin.

In short, no they won't be ditching their cash cow to compete with the open source vendors with combined revenue that doesn't match Microsoft's only income. There's two tech companies with more revenue than Microsoft, and neither builds the meat of their business on open source (IBM and Apple). Yes they will continue to feed the media confusing rhetoric to help create false impressions to counteract the media's love of inventive explanations and extrapolation. The biggest risk to MS as a business is getting too caught up in their own smokescreen (e.g. Windows 8 Metro UI).

Of course, I'd rather have less Microsoft in my life, but the likely candidates (ChromeOS, IOS and Android) are not what I would consider an improvement. OSX and Linux desktop distributions I find nice enough, but there's no signs of those superseding Windows.

Re:A non story...

[reactor451]

They might adopt a system of giving the base OS away for free but then sell the higher end features for the OS. Similar to how they marketed Win7 with their home, student, pro, super, ultimate, extreme, and ridiculous versions of their software. I could see them releasing the base server OS for free. But if you want to drop an Outlook, Active Directory, and IIS on there, you'd have to buy the add ons.

This would be good since people who are just pirating the software would become legit users. Small businesses that can't afford windows could use it with Apache or perhaps an entry level SMB Server add on. And they could then continue making massive amounts of money on the enterprise clients with their full stack (and full price) offerings.

Re:A non story...

[Junta]

I doubt that the situation will move that way any more than it already has. The question remains what competitive pressure pushes them into making Windows a loss leader? If you say the competitive pressure is more on the phone and/or tablet front, Microsoft is already doing that ('with Bing' for tablets, and their phone platform is free for any partner that cares). On the laptop/desktop, there is zero competitive pressure (OSX and Linux share *combined* is less than MS's 'failure' that is Windows 8). It's a nice thought that platforms that many of us hold dear could be significant enough to influence the behavior of Microsoft in such a dramatic way, but it's merely a fantasy. Android and IOS has made MS change some things, but nothing in the form factors MS currently charge for.

I could see them deciding the costs of users upgrading isn't worth the revenue of charging for upgrades, but when a vendor wants to preload Windows on a desktop or traditional laptop, you bet your ass MS will continue to demand their slice of that pie (Enterprise is a big cash cow, but so to is the revenue from device manufacturers).

Re:A non story...

[Junta]

I meant the costs of users electing not to upgrade (doing security updates for 3-5 code streams) versus the revenue of personal-use upgrade revenue (which might be nearly nothing).

Re:A non story...

[BarbaraHudson]

Apple built OS X upon FreeBSD

Sony built the playstation 4 upon BSD.

Those are both pretty big players. Don't be surprised if someone builds an Android-compatible smartphone atop FreeBSD, just to get away from Google's stranglehold.

Re:A non story...

[Junta]

With some exceptions (e.g. LLVM), Apple's engagement on open source has been consumer only. Even then, it's really around their kernel. Most of the rest of Apple's business is facilitated by closed source software. Of course while they need and provide respectable technology, the real driver of their ludicrous levels of success is more about style/marketing.

IBM does open source extensively, but the bulk of their business centers around proprietary closed software. If IBM open sources something, it's because they gave up figuring out how to monetize it and instead use it for reinforcing their image. IBM is actually interesting, despite nearly dropping completely from the mind of most people, they still command a lead over Microsoft revenue wise.

Re:A non story...

[Junta]

I wouldn't be *too* surprised if *someone* used a BSD to try to break into the ecosystem. However I don't see how a BSD kernel is a necessary or even particular relevant step to get away from Google's stranglehold, which is more in the upper end of the stack rather than bound to things like the kernel.

I do not believe Microsoft would be the ones to try such a thing. If they are going to get anything non-linux based going in the handset market, it'll be built on their own kernel (which can do the job in theory). If that continues to fail, I wouldn't be surprised by a 'Android with Bing' effort, but I would bet it would keep the base common and just mess with app store/search/maps/etc defaults. I don't see a big motivator for something in the middle given their existing in-house tech and the reality of the mobile device market.

Re:A non story...

[david_thornley]

I'd be surprised. Android is a confusing mess of stuff on a Linux kernel. You can get the source for the kernel and use it freely (or else). The kernel isn't where the stranglehold is.

MS versus Telescreens ?

[jabberw0k]

In a world where everyone is practically required to carry a telescreen which tracks them at all times, which spouts approved government "Amber Alerts" and panicky National Security Alarms -- devices which you can be imprisoned for "jailbreaking" -- will Microsoft become the lesser of the evils?

Re:MS versus Telescreens ?

[iampiti]

I'd say no. See what they've done with Windows 10? It's intimately tied to Microsoft's services (Bing, Cortana, OneDrive, Microsoft Accounts). You can't even remove OneDrive from the list of "fast links" on the left pane of the Windows explorer in Win10.
Microsoft seems to want to become Google (making money off people's data) and I personally hate it. Windows 7 is a nice OS which does what a OS is supposed to, i.e.: manage your hardware and run your programs while getting out of the way. Win 8 and 10 look like a giant advertisement for Microsoft's services.

Maybe

[WoodburyMan]

A year ago... maybe two, there's no way I would even think of believing this. Given the steps Microsoft has taken in the last 1-2 years, it may be something that's possible. First they offered major OS updates for free, first Windows 8 > Windows 8.1. Then next, Windows 10 for free for current Windows 7, 8, and 8.1 users. Then, on top of that, the open sourcing of .Net. Given Apple's "free" offerings, they were kind of forced to do this. The open sourcing of .Net was a surprise to me. Makes me think maybe they have gained some wisdom.

Re:Maybe

[stooo]

>> The open sourcing of .Net was a surprise to me.
it's not open source. You're basically not allowed to do anything with the source other cthan the use MS defined. I would rather call that "available source"

Re:Maybe

[snadrus]

In other words, they realize that the scale it tipped and new developers are questioning the value of education in .NET so Microsoft did the only thing they could to keep their domain-specific knowledge relevant: allow it to target Linux, iOS, and Android in the only reasonable way. Had .NET kept targeting Windows desktops and servers only, their base language would have been starved for developers in a few years.

Open?

[PPH]

Under which license? Is Microsoft going to allow forks and multiple Windows distros?

And how long before Poettering notices and ports systemd to Windows?

Re:Open?

[fisted]

And how long before Poettering notices and ports systemd to Windows?

He probably anticipated it years ago and already has a release-grade(*) windows port of systemd sitting around in his repo.

(*) i.e. kinda sorta works on his platform, for his use case, with pre-sanitized input, unless bad luck.

Re:Open?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they did do it, which is far from certain, it would probably be Shared Source (the model they intro'd about 10 years ago when they were dipping their toes into the open source waters), or something close to it. Basically Look but Don't Touch.

What they won't allow is for a bunch of senior MS engineers (or Miguel) to start up their own OS company with a Windows fork.

Re:Open?

[PPH]

The most valuable feature of an oen O/S is that I can rebuild the kernel from trusted source. So while the Windows source might benefit from the scrutiny of many eyes, I still will never be sure that the binary I installed actually came from that.

Re:Open?

[phantomfive]

Poettering has declared he will not port systemd to any other operating system, including OpenBSD, and furthermore, if someone does port it, he will not merge those changes. He refuses to do anything that will make his code less pretty. Here is what he says:

For us having a simple design and a simple code base is a lot more important than trying to accommodate for distros that want to combine everything with everything else. I understand that that is what matters to many Debian people, but it's admittedly not a priority for us.

And this one:

I have no plans porting it to other kernels, and I will not merge any such patches........Quite frankly, I'd like to question [cross-platform compatibility]. In the light of GNOME OS I think we need to ask ourselves the question if we do ourselves any good if we continue to support all kinds of kernels that simply cannot keep up with Linux anymore.

Incidentally, Wayland has picked up some dependencies on systemd, I didn't realize that.

Re:Open?

[PPH]

I'm going to watch what Poettering and his minions do, not what they say.

For us having a simple design and a simple code base is a lot more important than trying to accommodate for distros that want to combine everything with everything else. I understand that that is what matters to many Debian people, but it's admittedly not a priority for us.

And yet one of the major gripes about systemd is that it does exactly what Lennart says he doesn't want to do. It isn't a simple design, what with its everything including the kitchen sink squeezed in. And the cross dependencies between systemd, Gnome, Wayland (and who knows what else) violate the design philosophy of loose coupling*. If I wanted to run Windows, I would.

*For what appears to be no other reason than producing lock-in to systemd**.

** But I'll admit that this thinking violates the "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity" rule.

Re:Open?

[phantomfive]

Interestingly, Poettering benefited from the lack of lock-in when he wrote systemd, you might like this quote:

Right now systemd can already be used as a drop-in replacement for Upstart and sysvinit (at least as long as there aren't too many native upstart services yet. Thankfully most distributions don't carry too many native Upstart services yet.)

Somehow he didn't recognize that "easy to replace" is a virtue of good software design, even though he benefited from it.

Re:Open?

[phantomfive]

No, you're just confused about what the situation was and what was replaced

I understood the situation, and what was replaced. If you don't understand that "making things easily replaceable" is a good software engineering practice, then you're not a good software engineer. This is a basic principle.

Re:Open?

[phantomfive]

Easily replaceable? Probably not in most senses of the word easy, but what did you expect?

I expect easily replaceable. Moreover, I expect quality engineering, because that's the Unix way.

They should adopt Linux...

[gbcox]

If they were really smart, they would adopt the Linux kernel and develop a Windows Desktop, in much the same way that we have GNOME, KDE, etc. They have quite a few smart people working there, and it would be a win/win for everyone. They aren't a hardware manufacturer like Apple so it doesn't really make alot of sense for them to continue along the current model of selling Windows; and continuing to develop and support an operating system by yourself that is notorious for security issues is expensive. Those resources could be better applied toward other things that could be monetized. Helping with Linux would definitely be less resource intensive than what they are doing now.

Re:They should adopt Linux...

[BoRegardless]

Ahh but then MS would lose in supplying exclusive support.

Re:They should adopt Linux...

[MrKaos]

If they were really smart, they would adopt the Linux kernel and develop a Windows Desktop, in much the same way that we have GNOME, KDE, etc.

Pretty much said this a few years ago and the M$ fanbois gave me a serve.

Re:They should adopt Linux...

[gewalker]

Way too many dependencies on Windows based software to the APIs in Windows for this to be realistic.

It would be much easier for MS to upgrade their Unix compatibility layer to be compatible with Linux, they could easily make their own distro that played well with Windows and even offer to sell support.

Re:They should adopt Linux...

[hajile]

A much better solution for MS would be to build on top of BSD like Apple did. That would allow them to keep charging the big businesses for their software. They could also do things like offering the "home edition" as open source and then selling a "pro version" with all the additional features. BSD would also give them a competitive edge over the Linux GPL which is viewed as bad by a lot of businesses.

Re:They should adopt Linux...

[gbcox]

Perhaps, but maybe not - and they are in a slow spiral down and they know it. Their current model isn't sustainable, and I don't think they want to become another Blackberry. That isn't to say they are in any imminent danger, they have enough inertia to keep going on for years. They article seems to show that their current leadership knows they need to adapt and is willing to change. Will be interesting to see what they do.

Re:They should adopt Linux...

[gbcox]

They could leverage the WINE project to assist with legacy apps and gradually move everything to the new model. In any event the previous versions of Windows wouldn't go away overnight. Maintaining their own proprietary OS is just an albatross for them. They need to concentrate on things they can monetize.

Re:They should adopt Linux...

[DogDude]

The whole point of Windows is that everything is integrated and tends to work well together. To throw out the entire ecosystem to adopt Linux wouldn't make any sense. What's the "win/win for everyone"?

Re:They should adopt Linux...

[gbcox]

I didn't suggest that they throw out the entire ecosystem. I suggested that they use the Linux kernel. They would maintain a Windows Desktop. The win/win is that they save a bundle on supporting their kernel and Linux gets the benefit of the MS talent working on the Linux kernel.

Re:They should adopt Linux...

[gbcox]

Use of GNU doesn't preclude making money. Redhat has proved that...

Re:They should adopt Linux...

[gbcox]

Yup... I can definitely believe that... but in 2015 it's a brave new world... ;-)

Re:They should adopt Linux...

[BarbaraHudson]

Why would anyone adopt the Linux kernel (encumbered by the GPL) when they can use (and sell) the unencumbered FreeBSD one free?

Re:They should adopt Linux...

[reikae]

I also have to wonder whether Linux or the FreeBSD kernel are actually technically superior. Unfortunately I suppose very few people are qualified to answer; a thorough comparison would be an interesting read.

Re:They should adopt Linux...

[david_thornley]

They've got a pretty good kernel already, and having a somewhat better one isn't going to increase their profits much. It would take a lot of work to make sure most or all Windows applications ran on the Microsoft Linux Desktop. The big thing Windows has going for it is that it's compatible with all that Windows-compatible software, and Microsoft isn't going to throw that away.

Nor is Windows all that notorious for security issues. What I've been seeing is relatively small numbers of kernel bugs anywhere, and a lot in the applications layer, in things like Flash.

Give it to ReactOS

[jfdavis668]

Just give the source code to the ReactOS project. Let them take over so Microsoft can concentrate on Office.

Re:Give it to ReactOS

[Howitzer86]

A while back, ReactOS had to audit their code due to the possibility that some of it may have been sourced in violation of reverse engineering laws. I doubt they would be so eager to take code in any form directly from Microsoft, even if MS tried to give it to them. I also doubt the "open source" license MS is known to author would grant the ReactOS team the kind of freedom they'd want.

What a fellow has to say.

[nimbius]

What a fellow says at a technical conference and the gilded intent of a multinational corporation couldnt be further from each other. Microsoft has proven in the past that it prefers to milk open source with a blend of strategic patent litigation against manufacturers, not participate. Its embrace-extend attempt with 3 of its own open source licenses fell flat with the usual day-late-dollar-short microsoft approach to competing in the marketplace, but that was partly because Redmond didnt understand the whole point. Open source was a categorical departure from microsofts business model, it was a cathartic rebellion from coders who were sick of a cloistered elite being given access to the source. It was an uprising against the idea of software as service only.

so as far as this opinion is concerned, it boils down to an obvious assumption. As the turd swirls the drain anything is possible. Windows could become open source, or it could become cloud, or it could become freeware, but as Microsoft sees fit to drive it Windows has only become more aggravating and less relevant. Nowhere is this truer than in XBox, where the successful game console has in true Redmond fashion been hobbled to the uncertain, haggared burro known as Windows 10 in a desperate attempt to pre-emptively save it. The real question is between surface, phone, azure, and the microsoft market how much more XBox cash can microsoft use as a salve for products they dont care to change and insist must be a part of a market that doesnt need them

Re:Its all about the app store

[jones_supa]

Who wants to download buggy, ugly, insecure stuff?

That's popular among Linux guys... ;)

Microsoft Desperation ©

[DougPaulson]

Nuff sed .. been totally Open Source for the past year .. no thanks to MICROS~1

Sysinternals

[Dwedit]

Mark Russinovich is the guy who made the Sysinternals suite of programs, which are highly valuable utilities for your system. I've gotten great use out of Filemon and Procmon so many times.

Translation

[Greyfox]

The latest windows is so buggy the risk of giving away the source code might be outweighed by the idea of thousands of developers fixing all those bugs for free. Plus we'll file patent lawsuits against anyone who tries to use a not-our version commercially.

Re:Translation

[PRMan]

I don't find Windows 10 to be buggy at all anymore. The latest version is completely solid.

Re:Translation

[Greyfox]

You could just install Ubuntu, change the startup bitmap and a few labels in Unity and tell them it's Windows 10! "Yeah, Microsoft had to change the look and feel of the OS a bit when they added systemd *vague hand wave*" It might be a bit harder to pass Libreoffice off as Outlook/Powerpoint/Excel, but if you could transition the company to that first, odds are no one would ever notice!

Belated April Fools... right?

[t4eXanadu]

I never thought I'd see the day Microsoft mentioned "Windows" and "open source" in the same sentence, and that sentence isn't, "we're going to crush open source into submission". This has to be a belated April Fools' joke, right?

Wishful thinking folks

[bazorg]

He also noted that Microsoft is beginning to adopt a strategy familiar to open source vendors: give away the software, and then sell support and related products.

well I happen to work in a Microsoft "ecosystem" and this is not what I see. What Microsoft is doing is a move toward the freemium model that is so popular with everything mobile and non-x86. Freeware instead of licenses and ad hoc purchases of "Support" don't pay the rent, there's plenty of evidence for that in Linux-based software that never goes from "project" to "product"...

Today you can use the Office applications over the web for free but if you want the more advanced parts, get the credit card ready to sign up for a 12 month subscription, rather than paying license up front with annual maintenance like before.
If Windows with Bing is a sign of things to come is that there will be a subscription based offering for people who don't get Windows with a new PC. I'd be interested in seeing this go ahead, at the very least to see what's so difficult about getting Windows (and x86 Firefox) on my £99 Hudl2 tablet.

Re:Wishful thinking folks

[bazorg]

If Windows with Bing is a sign of things to come is that there will be a subscription based offering for people who don't get Windows with a new PC. I'd be interested in seeing this go ahead, at the very least to see what's so difficult about getting Windows (and x86 Firefox) on my £99 Hudl2 tablet.

I pressed submit too soon, meant to add that the truly interesting thing will be when Windows with Bing is available in retail and Apple says NOPE, our iPads are off-limits.

No paradigm shift

[GargamelSpaceman]

[Free windows would 'lift them up' to use other MS stuff] If they’re using Linux technologies that we can’t play with, they can’t be a customer of ours

So they have no intention of ever open sourcing anything but Windows or abandoning the closed source business model. I thought they were going to try and make money off the cloud and support of Windows.

Revolution in their thinking?

[Rambo Tribble]

Or the usual smoke and mirrors? Look at some of their current "open source" licenses and terms, then you be the judge.

Re:Revolution in their thinking?

[shutdown -p now]

Also Python Tools, F# and Roslyn (all AL 2.0).

A bunch of stuff from that list actually used to use non-free MS-* licenses on initial releases, but then switched to free ones.

"They can't be a customer of ours"

[melted]

>> they can't be a customer of ours

They very much can be. They just can't be customers of _Windows_. Mark is confusing Windows with Microsoft again. They can be customers of Azure, they can be customers of Office, they can be customers of SQL Server. I mean, just about any Microsoft product can run (and therefore can be sold) on Linux just fine. Except for Windows itself.

Particularly for server products, I just don't get why Microsoft insists on offering them only on Windows. Seems like at some point they too will wake up to the reality on this.

Re:Its all about the app store

[DickBreath]

Who wants to download buggy, ugly, insecure stuff? And that's just the OS....?

MBA drones.

Only if it has pretty graphics.

Probably not the greatest idea anyway.

[Lose]

Microsoft could continue to turn a profit on licensing like they do now with open source clauses. Hypothetically, there isn't a problem with that if they carried some BSD-like license for their OS. But, could you imagine the turmoil that would ensue? I can see it now: Dell PC's no longer ship with Windows, but Dell Workstation Foundation. Its like Windows, but with all the things they don't want you to have stripped out and replaced with their own proprietary spin. Who needs services when you have Dell work units? Or explorer when you have Dell clicky experience? OEM's do it with their phones all the time so what's stopping them from going full retard on the PC market, too?

Or worse, the OEM's void your warranty if you try to install vanilla Windows to avoid it to lock you into their solutions. I realize there are implications to some of the above that would break software, but we see the same things across Linux distributions all the time. Why would open sourcing Windows be any different?

Windows could never be open sourced anyway. There is code for libraries and other components licensed out from other vendors and all kinds of patent mess that would make it extraordinarily difficult for them to do it anyway. Its a cool thought, but its also a can of worms I hope they don't open.

Completely out of context, not the intent

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

While I wasn't at ChefConf this year, I know several people who attended this discussion. By selective quoting, the 'reporter' has completely misrepresented the statement.

The contextually mangled quote used in the article: "“t’s definitely possible,” Russinovich says. “It’s a new Microsoft.”

THe actual quote as far as I can determine: "You never know, it's definitely possible. Crazy stuff happens."

No OSS was harmed in the making of this post.

Good! Lets start with removing Metro and 2D icons

[chaosdivine69]

Awesome! Now we're talking...Lets start by removing all resemblances of the hideous Metro UI (either in 8, 8.1 OR 10) as well as the incredibly stupid idea of flattening everything (that includes adding back drop shadows, removing lame 2D MSPAINT like icons and adding back gradients on buttons). Even with the offer of free Windows 10 on the horizon I will NOT be downgrading my computing experience any further until this 2D Metro crap fad passes.

Fork it.

[roc97007]

Let's fork Windows, leaving an official for-pay version, and a separate, open source version using the Linux model. Microsoft could then vet the best of the contributions and fold them back into the closed, for-pay product. Enterprise customers would continue to purchase the official product from Microsoft, because of the perception that contracts for technical support are important, with the majority of new development being taken over by geeks like us.

Pragmatically, an open source fork would be a strong argument to organizations thinking about dropping Windows to stick with it.

How about,

[Deliveranc3]

A good windows?

Start with PALM OS.

After 25 years of linux and 35 years of unix -

[choke]

The current direction of mainstream Linux is so horrible that an open source windows could overtake it.

Config files that cannot be easily maintained, degraded modes that don't work properly, serviceability issues, binary log files that can only be consumed when the system has lib mounted (can't be read with /sbin) - it all points to a system being developed by non-sysadmins, which is exactly the reason that _we_ invented linux and the associated libraries in the first place.

Congratulations next-gen linux devs. You're basically rewriting solaris 3, which we abandoned in favor of lighter, better, simpler and more reliable. I can see the future, you'll be abandoned too.

Re:After 25 years of linux and 35 years of unix -

[ebvwfbw]

The Unix epoch is January 1, 1970. It's well over 40 years old Linux came about in 1992.

Not sure what the heck you're talking about with config files. They simple to maintain. I do it all the time. Windows on the other hand, that's a cluster fuck. That stupid registry BS. Yes, let's put all our config stuff in a database where it's almost impossible to deal with it. Impossible to preserve it. Really stupid.

I hope you're wrong about solaris 3 though I see parts of it in Linux. Solaris 3 really really really sucks.

One reason this can't happen -

[choke]

The government mandated back doors that are put in for cyberwarfare operations will be exposed.

I don't know if that seems too conspiratorial for people, but I think it's naive to think that this isn't already done.

What does he know?

[pak9rabid]

No offense, but engineers typically don't understand the business or legal needs of a company. Sure, from a technological point-of-view there's probably not a whole lot standing in the way of open-sourcing Windows, but I'd imagine there's all sorts of IP in Windows that isn't owned by Microsoft and is there because of cross-licensing agreements.

Open Plumbing?

[Tenebrousedge]

You're mischaracterizing his remarks. He's not going to try to find functional equivalents for cgroups on other kernels. Please explain the problem with that, and note that while "I would like all kernels to have the same (or equivalent) feature sets" is a problem, it is mostly your own mental problem. Also, a justification of why an OS plumbing layer should be OS-independent would be nice.

Re:Open Plumbing?

[phantomfive]

You're mischaracterizing his remarks.

And you're being polemic. He clearly said he will not merge any that would make it portable.

We've seen this sort of thing again and again throughout the history of Unix. Whenever a company makes something non-portable, it doesn't survive long-term. BSD will still exist when systemd is forgotten in history.

Re:Open Plumbing?

[Tenebrousedge]

Polemic, I will grant you. I feel you are being extremely vocal and equally dishonest in your criticism of systemd.

Non-portable stuff happens all the time and doesn't hurt anything, and in the long run all software is obsolete—even BSD. Systemd is a service management framework that depends on Linux-specific kernel features. I will grant you that in an ideal world as much of the OS as possible should be system-agnostic, however this is not an ideal world. For one thing, functional equivalents do not exist in other kernels, so portability is a moot point. Also, it would probably be a bigger change for other OSes than just process management; I'm not sure BSD is interested.

SysV init was portable because it was trivial. It was also deeply (but subtly) flawed. You could be very nearly sure that a process started or stopped when it should, but pidfiles have always been a bad hack around missing kernel functionality. Which do you want, working process management or BSD compatibility?

Re:Open Plumbing?

[phantomfive]

I wrote about portability and systemd here. If you can't figure out how to make portable software, the problem is you, not because it's theoretically impossible.

Re:Open Plumbing?

[Tenebrousedge]

It's not theoretically impossible, it's actually impossible. Kernel features equivalent to cgroups do not exist on other kernels. BSD jails are not remotely the same thing. If you can demonstrate otherwise, you'll begin to have a valid point, but you'll still have the question of whether it is practical (your example is too trivial to demonstrate this) and whether anyone actually wants systemd on other platforms.

If you're just going to spout uselessly vague aphorisms though, save yourself the effort of typing a response.

Re:Open Plumbing?

[phantomfive]

CGroups aren't necessary for systemd, all you need is a way to manage sub-processes (and really that's not even necessary for most of the interesting functionality of systemd).FreeBSD has enough capabilities with their jails. You're unaware of them, though.

All that is irrelevant. It wouldn't matter if BSD had an exact port of cgroups.....Poettering fairly clearly declared that he will not merge portability code, he's said that several times, and for more reasons than just cgroups.

Also you didn't even respond to the link I posted earlier.

So, emacs is like systemd then...

[WebCowboy]

...except systemd is less monolithic since it is actually a suite of separate binaries that each do specific things where everything emacs does relies on the central interpreter ;-)

Really though this "UNIX way" dogma is tired and old and irrelevant on all modern computing systems. Yes the philosophy has its merits but it was abandoned many years ago. XOrg gave up on it ages ago. Android and MacOS have UNIX/Linux underpinnings and next to nothing that makes them the OSes they are have anything to do with the UNIX way.

I will get off this here lawn now before that old guy with the grey neckbeard finishes piping his log files 15 ways through cat/awk/sed and notices my presence. I guess he didn't hear me arrive over the clacking of his model M and he cant focus his eyes that far after so much close work in front of his amber monitor ;-)