Slashdot Mirror
Windows is the Most Open Platform There is, Says Satya Nadella (zdnet.com)
On Tuesday in a conversation with Gartner analysts, Satya Nadella talked about the future of AI, the cloud, Windows, and what his company plans to do with LinkedIn. But the most notable remark from Nadella was when he said this, "Windows is the most open platform there is." ZDNet adds: It came in the context of Nadella talking about Microsoft's mission to unite the three big constituencies in the technology world. "That's the approach we've always taken," said Nadella, "bringing users, IT, and developers together... When you bring them together, that's where the magic happens." He reminded the audience of several thousand technology leaders that Microsoft began by making tools, then it made apps, and now it makes platforms. Or, it buys them.
LOLWUT?
I don't think that word means what you think it means...
Unless I can download the source code to the current version of Windows, make modifications and recompile, it's not really "open"...
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Well, kinda-sorta-ish... If you adopt a definition of 'platform' that somehow excludes Linux and the BSDs, which, while certainly not the best option for all purposes, are trivially more 'open' than any proprietary platform; he might have a more reasonable point.
Despite some unpleasant attempts in that direction(Windows RT, the exciting new Windows Store, Cortana-integrated-into-all-sorts-of-things, etc.), MS isn't nearly as control-freaky as Apple is; and, while they have gotten worse about it, aren't quite as ruthless about terminating everything that isn't the most current version. They are also arguably less enthusiastic about lock-in than Oracle(because who could be more enthusiastic?); and offer compatibility with a much wider selection of 3rd party stuff than IBM; but that's hardly the same as 'most open'. It is true that they are hardly the least open; but 'most open platform' isn't really something you have a shot at when you ship many of your core products as binaries only under proprietary licenses.
This sounds about like some authoritarian dictator, after staging a successful military coup and executing everyone in the previous government, claiming what a 'benevolent ruler' he is, that 'his administration will be open and transparent', and 'any citizen may contact me directly at any time with any concerns they may have'. In other words: Unbelievable bullshit. You literally FORCE your spyware-laden 'operating system' on people who were perfectly happy with what they already had, hide spyware in updates to previous versions of your software, use trickery to get Windows 10 onto people's computers, then make wildly inaccurate claims about the 'adoption rate' of your crappy malware/spyware 'operating system' and your 'installed user base'. Then you proceed to systematically annex the Linux world or lock them out of platforms completely, and likely have some sort of plans to destroy Apple, which will be the only other commercial OS available to anyone. Microsoft can go to hell. I'd rather not own a computer anymore than put up with bullshit of this magnitude.
Actually, it seems to be pretty effective spyware.
Think in the server domain: Windows is very inferior to other alternatives in this matter (and by a huge margin)
I don't quite follow the point you are trying to make. How much software is written for a platform, or how much hardware the OS supports seems to not be related to how open the OS is. It is kind of like relating how the vast amount of shag carpeting in the Atlanta suburbs in the 1970's is related to the juiciness of peaches shipped from Georgia. Atlanta is in Georgia, but the subjects of the statements are unrelated. Your comment just doesn't really make much sense to me.
I would also disagree with the hardware support statement. Whenever I plug a new device into a windows machine, windows goes and searches for a driver somewhere on the internet. If it doesn't find one, it asks me to load one. Windows seems to have almost no support for hardware built in and must rely completely on manufacturer's drivers. Windows isn't supporting the printer, the printer manufacturer is writing software (called drivers) that let Windows use the printer. That is hardware manufacturers supporting Windows, not Windows supporting hardware.
Linux supports a vast amount of hardware right out of the box, and almost never requires a manufacturer's driver.
It often surprises me at how little hardware Windows supports, out of the box, because the install footprint of Windows is measured in Gigabytes. Most Linux installs take up a few hundred Megabytes and yet include the drivers for tens of thousands of software devices. Just what is Microsoft doing with all that extra code, if Windows can't utilize most hardware until a driver is found, installed and configured?
In Linux, plug most hardware in and it just works. having to find a driver is a rare event. Yes I know, people are going to comment that they have a 'Lucky Panda collective # 5' (put name of obscure hardware here) touch pad that needed a driver, or that the latest version of some nVidia graphics card that only has beta-drivers for Windows is not supported. But those are the odd occurrences.
I just re-built a Windows 7 machine for my uncle a few months ago. To get his HP all-in-one printer working I ended up with a download from HP that was over 300 MB! I know the drivers for the printer/scanner/fax/copier were probably just a few thousand kB at most, and that most of the other crap was wasted on HP software that he'll never use. Just for fun I connected my Linux laptop to the printer via the wifi network and my laptop recognized the printer and I could print and scan without loading any additional software. Windows had no support without installing additional driver software. The printer was a brick to Windows without third party drivers, and yet Linux needed absolutely nothing else to use the printer, just plug and play. The printer was fully supported by Linux right out of the box.
The amount of software developed for Windows is due to the fact that Windows is the dominant OS in the PC market place today. Nothing comes close. Mac has 5%, maybe 6 or 7 % on a good day. Of course developers are going to write for the dominant platform in the marketplace, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with 'openness'. It's like juiciness and shag carpeting again, just completely unrelated.
Windows supports very little hardware.
Go buy a printer and set it up. Then connect it to your windows machine. Do not allow windows to search for a driver on the internet and do not load the drivers that shipped with the printer.
Try to configure the printer and print. Windows won't be able to. Windows does not support the hardware.
The truth is pretty much the exact opposite.The hardware manufacturer supports Windows. The hardware manufacturers write software drivers that allow Windows to use their hardware. The cost of the support is paid for by the hardware manufacturers. The distribution of the support software is paid for by the hardware manufacturers.
Microsoft supports almost no hardware, hardware supports Microsoft.
Try the same printer with any major Linux distribution. You will probably just have to plug the printer in and configure it. You won't have to download anything. Linux will already have support for the printer built in. This is true of almost all hardware for Linux. You usually don't even have to do any configuring in most hardware, just plug and play.
Upgrades never works properly regardless of the OS(Windows, OSX, Linux, BSD).
You're obviously not a linux or bsd user! LOL
Upgrades rarely cause an application to fail. They do not routinely cause system crashes, freezes, etc. Even application failures are years between. And that is linux. Over in BSD-land, it is very rare indeed because they're basically allergic to adding new features in a bug fix.