Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft "thinking about" Open Source
Everyone, their mother, Uncle Henry and Aunt Maude wrote in about Microsoft considering using Open Source. While they've talked about it before, Steve Balmer, MS President, said in remarks that Microsoft is thinking about - Note:thinking about the Open Source model. But, hey, lotsa people think about lotsa things. I'm not holding my breath
win3.1 source code!! woohoo!!
Actually, it's often easier to write code to implement a complicated interface, since it puts more responsibility on the user to manage things. I don't know what the situation is here, of course :-)
Daniel
"`Embrace and extend' is like what a boa constrictor does to a rat."
-- Anonymous Microsoft Employee
A.C.
and monkeys are flying out of my ass as I type this...NOT!
MS is just trying to jump on the Open Source bandwagon, or at least testing the waters to see if any fish will bite. If they can throw around the term Open Source and make a few more bucks, they'll do it. Remember, they are great at taking existing ideas, stealing them and bastardizing them into some MS Frankenstein. We all know that MS will never release truly Open Source software.
Oh come off it! 30+ million lines of code and nothing we want to borrow. Give me a break, I'm pretty sure we could find a line or two that's usefull in that crap.
Besides, think of the fun we could have with that little paper clip.
Replace it with Tux the Penguin!
Ack you all missed the point! This article is just a paid advertisement to take a few cheap shots at Linux! Why are you even writing about MS's OS model???!? Read before posting fools!
/.'s are bitching about the wrong things! Read the article before posting the usual about MS OS! The thing to bitch about in this article is FUD, not MS's OS model! Now repost your work!
"Initially, some people thought it was the price, but I
frankly don't think that's the case. In
almost every application that we talk to
people about, people want a good
price, but the most important thing is
to get a platform that does the job and
is reliable."
Gee does that make Windows sound like a great product that is stable and cheap, while Linux is some shitty hack that will take years to setup?
"For that reason, he said the Linux
open source development model
is"interesting" but of limited value."
Wow, maybe someone should just close it up, seeing as how it is so useless and unstable compared to MS! I see how closing it up would instantly make it better!
"On the other hand, we're trying to understand what it is that
really brings the benefit."
Well Meester Ballmer, we know u know from where comes the benefit. Otherwise why would you be tossing the OS buzzword to the plebes?
You
No no no...Microsoft isn't thinking about open source! They're thinking about open sores!
> but there are a great number of bugs that WE can't fix,
.sig file material to me. :)
> because it'd break existing apps.
Cool, that sounds like
Well, since most of Windows 9x is written in Ada it wouldn't matter much. And NT is mostly C, but has hundreds of millions lines of code (250 million I believe maybe it was 350). Who in their write mind can keep up with it. Some company would have to basically take out all the extra crap and start from a much smaller codebase. Besides all the people/companies that would work on such a product usually have their own OS, IBM has several.
Visual C++ is actually 10-20% faster than GNU C (and the egcs). This is the plain truth as much as I hate to admit it. Ofcourse, since it can't build Linux binaries, it's not of much use ;-)
You know, the windows functions MS doesn't tell anyone about, but which their own products (Word, etc.) use to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of competitors who are forced to re-invent the wheel. This isn't even about source. MS should already be open about this.
Translation: We must learn their ways in order to infiltrate, undermine, and destroy those communist anti-corporate bastards!
Haven't you figured it out yet? Some of these people don't care two wits about software. They just use Linux because they hate Microsoft. It isn't rational, but it's the truth.
It's a holy war, and these are the holy warriors, so there isn't really much point in trying to discern any rational purpose in their striving.
I've used Wine, and I've used Wabi. It kinda-sorta works. If they really keep at it they'll eventually have it to the point where it's useful. Maybe eventually even as useful as Windows itself. But I'm not banking on it.
First the Open Source advocates say "Linux is better because it's open source" and complain that Windows isn't open source.
Then when MS says it's thinking about Open Source those same people say "MS Open source is useless".
Which is it? Is microsoft bad because it's not open source or is Microsoft open source useless?
Don't discuss whether MS will or won't actually release the source openly, but assume that they did for the purposes of this argument.
Actually, you would find that to Microsoft, Linux is just an annoyance. It's almost as good as NT Server on low-end hardware, so it cuts into the growth of the NT Sever market. But it will never be more than a nerd's playground on the desktop.
The more people who fumble around with the lousy boxed distributions of Linux now coming onto the mass market, the more people who will soon be back recognizing what a good thing they have in Windows, where they don't have to poke around under the hood like a Harley rider to get the machine running (again).
This received a score of 1? Lovely....guess I'll stick to reading >2
That's right! Not only must they learn how to write cleanly optomized code, they should learn the art of GUI design (e.g. -- human factor engineering).
So, you are saying that a community of hackers who put up with the User Interface abomination that is the X Window System is going to have anything useful to say about GUI design??
Puhleeese!
Yeah, but it's too late to prevent people from installing linux -- we already did that.
They are scrambling to stop something that has already happened.
As much as LILO tries to prevent it from being possible, you'll discover there ARE people out there who've tried Linux and gone back to Windows. I've used Linux off and on since the Yggdrasil Fall 1993 release, and I wiped a Linux partition and installed Windows 98 on it just a few weeks ago. I had real work to do on my computer and the Linux was just getting in the way.
I agree somewhat with that. When I used to run Windows 95, I ran at 640x480 with large fonts because of my vision.
Well, as soon as I installed some apps, the menus went right off the screen. Back then, I could have really used the source.
I no longer have any need for MS source, because I have better alternatives.
The way I see it, it's a bit like the old Soviet Politburo saying "we're thinking about democracy." The essential thing is that democracy is fundamentally incompatible with everything the Politburo stood for. In the same way, open source seems (to me) to be fundamentally incompatible with everything Microsoft stands for.
As people have said before, open source is not a corporate shortcut, any more than sham elections would mollify a democracy-hungry populace. More than anything, open source is about software of the people, for the people, and by the people. To call open source supporters hypocritical for not supporting a company with a long history of badmouthing them and their ideals, as well as engaging in every shady trick they stand against, seems a bit heavy-handed.
And I would agree that "The only way MS can be successful is by not being MS." Personally, MS's approach to things makes me sick, and if Open Source represents any sort of renaissance of development, their way of being should die a ignoble death.
I'd also like to opine, if I may, that there are a lot of bad corporations out there. But MS is the Hitler to their Pol Pots, Mussolinis, and Stalins -- it's not the only bad guy in an otherwise ideal world, but it is the closest, most visible, and thus most easily reviled of the bunch.
Microsoft never used any "underhanded tricks" on Caldera. Stop spreading false rumors.
Microsoft SQL Server 7 is a complete in-house rewrite. It's no longer a derivative of Sybase. And it's damn good. This is what's got Oracle worried.
Funny, these are aproximately the same things Mac advocates used to say about PC's and Windows, but in the long run PC's (and Windows due to exclusive bundling agreements) won out due to their apparent openess, relatively low cost, and an association with a strong name brands like IBM and Compaq.
Linux has all these things going for it too. It'll be interesting to see how all this plays out in the end.
And as a developer, I'll keep writing code for Microsoft. The problem with giving all your code away is that you can't make a living at it. How are developers supposed to make money in your world view? Interesting how so many Slashdotters are still students and have yet to experience the real world.
Windows NT does the job just fine for me. Several years, 24/7, never a crash.
Xwindows is a GUI? And all this time I thought it was just a graphics server...
Were those comments on Java in your mind or the mind you are getting into? Whoever it is, I would say he is wrong. No offense to you personally if it is coming from the Microsoft guy though. I would be happy to debate the merits of Java though, although that is as much of a holy war as the Linux vs. Microsoft and OSS vs. Corporations is. I would just like to know why people think Java isn't good. Again, no offense to you personally and if it was not your point then I stand corrected.
..."Thinking about [how to beat] Open Source"
Instutionalized criminal behavior is exactly the same as individual criminal behavior in that recidivism is the heart beat signature pattern that you can always count on. And, as we all know, Microsoft is Guilty (tm). Insist on nothing less than house arrest for Bill Gates (minus external comm, of course)!
M$ has $100,000,000,000+ of catching up to do. Once they give back a significant proportion of what they've taxed the world then maybe you'll see more support of their actions.
Actually, Look at mozilla.. It's pretty much a failure.
Even jwz bailed.
One thing that no one has mentioned is that this might actually be usefull for people that use MS products. If you don't know why something isn't working the way you thought, this might be a better way to find out why rather than logging a call to MS support.
Yes, I know, MS doesn't produce the One True OS (tm), etc., but there is a chance that if MS makes some products Open Source, it might be easier to live with them. This would produce great effects for them.
Anyone really keen on fixing Microsoft's bugs for them? I think it's a pretty hollow move, MS lets us tinker with some of thier coveted source-code, while keeping all the really useful code closed off.
No thanks. I already have several "open source solutions"...
You're confusing practical Open Source advocacy with over-zealous Open Source advocacy. I don't think any thoughtful reader will seriously consider Open Source as 'the true way, the ONLY way' for any future software development. Proprietary commercial development isn't going to curl up and die anytime soon; nor should it.
Also, I don't think ANYBODY said that they didn't want it (M$ source release) to happen -- just that it wouldn't be terribly useful. It could, however, be an apt punishment for Microsoft (should they be forced to release a reasonable amount of code) since they would have a hard time using underhanded tricks such as the one they used on Caldera if the source were available.
M$ is *thinking* about open source. I'm 30, and I'm *thinking* about retiring. So, you know, what.ever.
What makes you think that this happens? Simply because you've been told by others that it does?
It's true that Andrew Schulman discovered a number of undocumented Windows calls that Microsoft apps made back in the Win 3.1 days, but he also pointed out that most of these calls did not gain them anythings since there we equivelant documented calls. (of course, this begs the question of why they were used. Most likely because whoever wrote the code was familiar with the call).
There have been a lot of people looking for these undocumented calls in todays apps, but so far nobody has found any that I can tell. It's pretty easy to track API calls and there are lots of tools out there to help you.
So why does this rumor persist?
The line in the sand has been drawn.
And I see you're all suited up in your Masters of the Universe pajamas and are ready to take on the Microsoft Monster. Just try to keep all the sand in the sandbox, kids. Dad's pretty mad about last time....
What if this is just part of another scam? What if they publish some code under a somewhat restrictive license, and then wait until Linux does something similar in their code, and then sue Linux for copyright infrigement, license violation, or something else? Even if the case is without any merit, you will get news stories of Linux hippies stealing code from M$, and it will drive the poor hacker bankrupt (NO ONE can outspend M$) and cast something of a pall over all Open Source development...
And its just the type of thing I would expect from M$.
Let's get this straight. MS wishes to release code in the databasing area, which implies that they want the GNU Generation to develop it. Basically what they want is free of charge coders with code wich is owned by them. They release the database code, (Say SQL Server) because they feel that they can imporve it so much, that it will exceed all other databases.
- - - -
-----------------------------------------------
A call to the GNU Generation!
-----------------------------------------------
DON`T DO IT! M$ IS OWNED BY CAPITALISTS AND RUN BY THE VERY SAME. EVERYTHING THEY DO IS PROFIT ORIENTED, AND THIS WILL NOT CHANGE. THEY WILL ONLY DO SOMETHING IF IT BENEFITS FOR THEM!
TRUST NOTHING THAT MICROSOFT HAS PROPOSED! THEY HAVE CHEATED YOU ENOUGH, DON`T LET THEM CONTINUE!
Thank you for your Attention
NETPace
-- Live free or Die! LINUX! --
EOF
.
Why do we (the open source community) even both discussing this issue?
Microsoft has a long history of pushing its own proprietary solutions
while ignoring or subverting cross-platform, open standards. Not-to-
mention their documented efforts to eliminate any conceivable competition
via methods that could be described, at best, as unsavory. Does anybody
seriously believe that they're about to change their ways *this* late in
the game?
Maybe once the playing-field has been leveled (if indeed ever it is) or
Microsoft establishes the same history of supporting truly open standards
as it has so far only its proprietary, lock-in solutions, there will be
some point to this kind of discussion. Until then, hints like this from
Microsoft can be regarded seriously only as so much PR spin.
"What [Linux] caused us to do was really focus and ask what is it about the Linux model that really rivets people," Ballmer said. "Initially, some people thought it was the price, but I frankly don't think that's the case. In almost every application that we talk to people about, people want a good price, but the most important thing is to get a platform that does the job and is reliable."
"[Open source] means different things to different people, but certainly the notion that there are parts of our source code that if published would help you be more effective in your job," Ballmer said.
"I don't think everybody really wants to dig through the code that puts out menus, but there are parts of the system where if you have the source code, I think people would feel that to be more effective," Ballmer said.
Ballmer hinted that one area would concern portions of the code that related to database connectivity, which many developers find "complicated and difficult to understand."
RANT SUMMARY: Don't let the sleezy hype of MSFT get to you -- do you really want to lower yourself to their level?!
Typical Manager:
The tech's will be satisfied, and there's no risk.
Besides, NT has already been proven to be faster than Linux, and to scale better.
Just because Balmer says they're interested, doesn't mean they are.
In my (very) humble opinion, Microsoft is still trying to get their corporate mindset around the idea of open source. This piece seems to indicate to me that they don't understand why Open Source is successful, what motivates people to produce Open Source software, or why it's better than Microsoft products. I'm guessing that Microsoft's current view of the Open Source movement is a lot like the blind men's view of an elephant: they see a tree, a snake, and a rope (or at least Linux, Samba, and Apache) but don't understand how it fits together or why it hurts so much when it steps on them. Open Source is a concept that even fairly forward-thinking corporate managers have had a difficult time grasping. It's only been recently (and due in good part to the successes of the Open Source Foundation) that there has been some success.
Microsoft, on the other hand, has always had difficulty understanding the idea of sharing programs. This attitude goes back a long way into their corporate history - does anyone other than me remember Bill Gates' open letter on software piracy, back in the Altair days? I'd say it's safe to say that Bill Gates and Microsoft haven't ever "gotten it" about free software or open source - even back when personal computers were mostly a hobby and not big business.
All of the prior serious competitors that Microsoft has had to deal with have been profitmaking corporations. Microsoft management at least knows the mindset, understands their competitor's goals, and this enables them to formulate a strategy for winning. Not so with Open Source - Microsoft is still trying to understand it. It's awfully hard to formulate a strategy when you don't understand the opponent's motivations or goals.
Sure, it's a fine idea to rewrite everything, and throw away all legacy code. Then there would be as few productivity apps for Microsoft platforms as there are for Linux.
There really does seem to be a critical mass of "I use Linux because I hate Microsoft" sentiment in the Linux userbase. That critical mass seems to grow every day. It's a real problem for Linux, too, because once there are enough carpers and whiners on board NOTHING will get done.
Personally, I use Win98, Win95, Linux, NT (3.51 and 4.0), and NetBSD on the various machines on my home network, (none of them dual-boot) and may be reinstalling BeOS again soon on one of my machines. The name of the game is interoperability in a mutli-platform world. All of them have their relative merits, and only fools dig their heels in and claim that the OS they happen to be using is the ONE TRUE THING. If you're gonna cop that attitude, spare us. Join a monestary somewhere.
Isn't that Microsoft, too? Because breaking others' applications is a standard practice for Microsoft.
Says a lot about "having a roadmap".
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Hah hah! Yeah, actually, I love to code in my pajamas. Its great, you can fart and not worry about anything.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Sure, attack Open Source on the merits that you can't profit from it. That definitely maintains the status quo, and it makes it easier to view the OSS movement as a fantasy world occupied by naive semi-socialist college students ... certainly a great way to *NOT* contribute to the movement.
But as with any 'movement' its really only a matter of time until someone smart comes along and works out the economy of how to profit from it from a pure market-economy/capitalist perspective.
Look, better people than you and I have fought the "OSS for Profit" argument and both sides have lost. So lets just not go there.
But allow me to make the point that your "stasis field" economic view is a *potentially* primitive one, which you will at some point have to adjust in order to survive in future economies.
Exchange of goods/services takes many shapes and sizes, you know... and there are quite a few people making a very acceptable and comfortable living within the OSS movement... perhaps we should be highlighting these individuals/organizations instead of bullshitting amongst ourselves?
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Microsoft has *always* kindled and fostered their number 1 asset in the OS wars, which is simply Developer Mindshare. If you own the developer, you dictate what OS people use...
Anyone that's been to one of Microsofts numerous "Developer Days" knows that it's a cushy love-fest between Microsoft and a bunch of developers soaking up the glory to be had from carting around Free Shit from Microsoft. It's an excellent study in modern propaganda techniques.
Now, what Open Source represents to Microsoft is a threat to their efforts at cultivating this key asset in their strategies, which is, again, Developer Mindshare.
You see, most of the really and truly bright and smart developers out there are often very interested in looking at other peoples code, in the hopes that they can gleen some nugget or pearl of programming wisdom, or in some cases maybe rip a function or two for use in their own work.
This is a big part of a professional software developers technique - any true pro knows that he never stops learning, and in his quiet times will gladly check out someone elses code.
This is the true threat to Microsoft and it's coveted cache of "Developer Mindshare", a threat from the heart and sould of the OSS community, and it is this threat that they will be responding to with any of their own OSS-type campaigns in the future.
They'll be working on:
a) Keeping their Developer Mindshare interested in Microsoft products, and only Microsoft products. Which means if we do get source code released from them, it'll be specific to Win32-based platforms, and will leave just enough out to make porting not worthwhile. Or it'll be really crappy parts of their Win32 universe, as others have pointed out.
b) Cultivating new developers by giving them more Free Shit from Microsoft, which will more than likely take form of a CD bundled with source code from Microsoft for new programmers to seek wisdom from, or steal stuff from for their own products (which will only run on Microsoft OS'es).
And watch for a sacrificial lamb gesture: they'll probably make a "Lite" version of their developer tools freely available for download off the 'net. Maybe Win2k will come with a "Lite" version of Visual Basic or something, or their C compiler will be released, with all of it's Microsoft-isms carefully designed to make code a pain in the ass to port to other OS's...
What the OSS community needs to watch for is the "Free Shit from Microsoft" factor. Anything we can do to make the "Free Shit from Microsoft" less valuable to a newbie developer is worth the effort...
Its the *NEW* developer that we need to be attracting to the OSS camp, and away from the greedy clutches from Microsoft, and I believe that Microsoft know this all too well...
The line in the sand has been drawn.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
They are not contradictory. Linux was opensource from day 1. MS was not. Taking a pre-existing large closed bohemoth of code and opening it at a later date is not very useful. Especially when the plan is to only open some small parts of it (read the article), and leave the rest closed. With the way everything in Windows is interdependant, opening up only part of the code is not very useful: "Oh, look, here they call the foobar function - Is that very efficient? I don't know, I can't see the foobar function..."
So you oppose the Mozilla project, since it was not Open Source from day 1?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
are you stoopid or sompin'? bloaded monstrisities is EXACTLY what IE IS! if ya don't like navigator, then use something like mozilla... AOL isn't any better than yo beasthoemonger company M$.
--------- The universe as we currently understand it: First there was nothing
- "Linux is better because it's open source."
- "MS Open Source is useless."
They are not contradictory. Linux was opensource from day 1. MS was not. Taking a pre-existing large closed bohemoth of code and opening it at a later date is not very useful. Especially when the plan is to only open some small parts of it (read the article), and leave the rest closed. With the way everything in Windows is interdependant, opening up only part of the code is not very useful: "Oh, look, here they call the foobar function - Is that very efficient? I don't know, I can't see the foobar function..."Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned in this thread is what effect this might have on *other* companies. Yeah, none of us want to become unpaid Microsoft coders. But there are plenty of other bits of code we'd love to have access to, graphics card drivers for one. Microsoft revealing their source code (clearly it's not open source, it's making the source to proprietary apps available but still restrictively licensed) might have a significant influence on other companies that currently protect even the most irrelevant IP like it was the Crown Jewels. The "If Microsoft did it, maybe we should" meme could be quite powerful and useful.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Windows will never be an incredible OS.
The Win32 API is an abomination. It violates every accepted rule of good, sane programming practice. If the interface is that bad, imagine what the implementation must be like.
TedC
It's the "play the promises" game again. Microsoft makes some vague statement, and people get all excited. It's things like benchmarks, FUD, and vapor ware which really hurt the Linux community.
Hopefully promising "eventually to consider" open source will stall people from going to Linux, right? Why even mention it if they obviously aren't serious, right?
i've read many of these postings, and it seems that microsoft are damned if they do, damned if they don't.
/. either randomly flaming them, spreading FUD about them or just ranting.
MS have been so demonised by fanatical linux zealots that, let's face it, whatever they say or do from now until the end of time, there will be people on
My advice? grow up and get a life.
I'd guess that Microsoft wouldn't use the GPL, BSD, or artistic licenses. I'm certain that they would control all rights to distributing binaries of their source (you won't see Joe's Word 98).
Microsoft is just doing it to be on the latest bandwagon, they're doing it because they feel it will ultimately make them money. They don't want to miss the boat like they missed the Internet. I think most businesses which are truly in the Open Source market (Cygnus, for example) are there because they believe in it. Microsoft will only muddy the waters with proprietary licenses.
The only products of theirs that are worth open sourcing are the operating systems. It'd be nice to have the source so Windows programmers could more easily diagnose system crashes and strange behavior. Open sourcing Microsoft Word would never work---you think Mozilla had a long ramp up time, imagine Microsoft Word!
Just remember, if Microsoft open sources anything it won't be for your good, it'll be for theirs. You won't be able to distribute changes or binaries. It won't be Open Source (tm), it'll be Microsoft Semi-Open Source with an End User License Agreement that would make RMS puke.
Ballmer has always played the role of "Bill's muscle".
Bill is the emporor Palpatine,
and Steve is Darth Vader.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
One true way? Sorry your church of Microsoft is in Redmond.
Providing source code solves problems. If you release just a piece of the whole you may not get any problems solved. But Microsoft is not releasing the code to solve problems. They are just doing it because it's trendy, like smoking cigars or having a lesbian fling.
Microsoft will have to open up a big chunk of code (because everything is the OS ) to make it worth someones time.
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
If M$ even does this, which I highly doubt they will, I'll bet that the license they use will make a combination of the worst elements of the original revisions of the NPL, APSL, and QPL look like the GPL (actually, probably more like the BSD license) by comparison.
I should also reiterate an argument which has been stated before: several-million-plus-line projects don't seem to do well when they start proprietary and then go Open-Source later. It seems as though the mig stuff almost has to be Open-Source from the very beginning to be successful. This is understandable, since that means you get a team of developers who've worked on this project as an Open-Source project right from day one, to help the new programmers out.
In short, even if M$ does do this, it'll fail miserably. And then they'll likely use that to spout some more FUD.
Uh huh.
I'm sure the guys over at WineHQ couldn't find a single peice of code that they could need.
You'd have to admit, open sourced Windows would be a great step in getting win32 applications working CORRECTLY on Linux. While they're doing a great job with Wine, there's still a lot to do that would be a lot easier with the origional source (GPLed of course)
The MS fudmeisters are just about in full swing now.
Why?
They are absolutely terrified, otherwise why all the FUD? Linux has made MS completely redundant. With KDE and Gnome, you simply don't need a Windows desktop, with Samba and Apache you don't need an NT server, with sendmail and IMAP, you don't need Exchange. With apps like KDE Office, Gnumeric etc even MS Office will be completely excess to requirements.
On top of the above you have the promiscuous GPL licensing terms.
My god, I'm not surprised they are afraid.
Deleted
RANT
i was going to quote the same line...m$ is just a roving preditor, cashed up and looking to get in on the latest fad to increase market share.
SERIOUS QUESTION
would anyone in their right mind want to hack for instance a GNU-NT? (i'm thinking something fast and with a lot of hard drive space.) would anyone hazard a guess as to what type of machine setup one would need to do this?
does anyone know what compiler m$ uses to compile NT code? surely not Visual C++? does anyone know the answer to this. imop, any such effort by m$ to open their code would meet the same response wrt the open source community as with aol/netscape mozilla escapade. i couldn't see a useable development cycle using this model.
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
You wrote:
"'m sorry -- but no one wants to dig through any Microsoft code, other than to laugh at some of the awful programming technices. This guy has no more clue about coding than any other typical president at a typical software company...it's really beginning to show now, though. "
Well.actually, just out of curiosity, I'd like to
see it. Check if we're doing *very* different
things and all. I *suspect* we are but still...
It *would* be interesting.
If Microsoft released anything worth releasing under a proper Open Source (by definition) licence (preferably GNU so the source can be used in other GNU projects - if there's anything worth having) Microsoft would be in the situation where there would be many companies (and individuals) package Windows up and offer their own distributions of Windows. They could start to offer better support packages than MS would offer and MS would lose out severely.
Netscape elearsed their source as an effort to save their declining market share. Microsoft is still going from strength to strength and although their product quality would surely improve if they open sourcsd it they would lose millions of dollars (and what do you think MS is concerned with quality or making money).
So if they're going to make anything open source it is going to be under their terms and certainly not under an existing open source licence. There would be no freedom (in the sense of free speech, and probably not even free beer!), MS may even charge a fee to access the source and even if not they'll limit the freedom to redistribute binaries / modifications.
Perhaps they'll only open source components of the OS that Microsoft developers are having difficulty with in the hope that the OSS community will solve all their problems. Well that will be unlikely unless they can then incorporate the code into their own projects.
Basically no reasonbto get excited over.
--
yes, linux is succesfull because of open-source model but it's not the only think which makes linux "the best" for us.
and i agree with Omar Djabji that being "anti-M$" (or not content with M$ or being annoyed by M$) is not enought to switch to alternative solution. at leat for masses.
ask users of M$ software whether they are content with it. especialy ask people which's work HIGHLY DEPENDS on mentioned products (i.e. people which are making theire bisinesses on such products, etc.)
hany
i do have some programing experiences and i'm sure breaking some app with some fix is the best solution.
ISV should push M$ to fix the bugs so they do not have to fix 3rd party apps to bypass bugs in OS thus risking that after OS upgrade (i.e. VEEEEEERY late bug fix) theire apps wont run.
hany
hany
Netscape scrolling repaint is plain trash too. :(
And ImageMagic repaint is all but optimized... Try moving a window in "OpaqueMove" mode over it...
Or is it an X problem ? Off topic anyway.
Well, good. Personally, I'm glad to see M$ start thinking about SOMETHING useful. If they went Open Source, we might be able to replace the $ with a S. If windows had a global community behind it like Linux does, imagine where Windows would take off to. One can't deny that with a little support, Windows would, without a doubt, be an incredible OS. (Can you say memory management?)
:wq
--
after all those benchmarks showing that NT crushes linux, why would MS have anything to fear from not going open source? I'm not trying to say that the benchmarks are valid or that linux doesn't have other advantages such as stability. But it seems to me that MS is on the attack right now and none of this "oh we're scared of linux Mr. DoJ. It's a competitive threat"
---
Actually, I'd quite like to take a look at their menu / widget drawing code. Especially the channel bar in IE4. The number of unnecessary redraws really pisses me off.
But then we'd all know just how low-quality MS's developement efforts really are.
Ballmer says,
I predict that Microsoft will decide that revealing the actual source code is unnecessary, and that the best way to keep outside developers working on MS/Windows apps is business as usual. Host workshops, promote books for programmers on Windows "tricks", sell pointy-clicky GUI tools, but certainly don't let anyone outside see the code itself.
If this conjecture is correct, then the only other thinking that Micros~1 will do about "open source" is how to discredit and crush it. Notice how, early in the article, Ballmer is embarrassed to even use the term.
Oh come off it! 30+ million lines of code and nothing we want to borrow. Give me a break, I'm pretty sure we could find a line or two that's usefull in that crap.
Besides, think of the fun we could have with that little paper clip.
wait, that's office ... okay, maybe your right.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
I hate to break it to you, but as someone with 12+ years of experience, Ritalin *is* a stimulant.
just a thought
--Dave
Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology
Well open-sourcing database connectivity wouldn't really make a difference anyway. You can currently connect to MS-SQL with the FreeTDS libraries (http://www.metalab.unc.edu/freetds), and Sybase has been discussing releasing all their libraries as open-source (MS-SQL is a derivative of Sybase 4.2). Plus, there are open-source ODBC driver managers such as iODBC. So is really an empty gesture.
Spending the million dollars the bank will give me as part of it's open source policy.
...NOT gonna happen.
>This may sound like blasphemy to some of you, but Ballmer looks like a decent guy. While pondering about Open
>Source, so far I haven't seen him spout any FUD so far - that's makes him seem like a saint compared to those
>other guys (Muth, Gates for example).
IIRC, Ballmer was the guy who claimed that there was a ``Chinese Wall" between the OS development team & the application development teams. And this was proof that Word, Excel & Powerpoint all happened upon those undocumented features in Windows 3.1 entirely by hard work.
Ballmer always struck me as being to PHBs as Bill Gates is to the common garden-variety hacker: a ersatz knock-off of the real thing.
Then again, Gates has a clue that Micro$oft is on a direct course with an iceburg: he has recently sold off some 260 million shares, & is spending his time on a speaker's tour of the world. Ballmer has been left to deal with the numerous challenges to Microsoft: BSD & Linux on the server side, 3Com's Palm Pilot on the handheld side, several competitors for tv-top controllers -- & the tv-top market may not be the next Killer Application. Ballmer may find himself tied to the mast as M$ starts its downward spiral.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
'Ballmer hinted that one area would concern portions of the code that related to database connectivity, which many developers find "complicated and difficult to understand." '
Open source is exactly the wrong way to go about solving this problem. If the interface is complicated and messy, what's the code like?
Unless they're encouraging people to work on said code, and folding any changes back into the code, they're wasting their time. And I for one would not work for free for the world's richest corporation. (Not that they'd want my meagre skills, but there you go.)
K.
-
--
To the extent that I wear skirts and cheap nylon slips, I've gone native.
-- Proud descendant of semi-nomadic cattle-herders.
Actually, it's often easier to write code to implement a complicated interface, since it puts more :-)
responsibility on the user to manage things. I don't know what the situation is here, of course
The problem is, once you expose the implementation, people write to the implementation rather than the interface. Say you change the implementation but keep the interface. Code that depends on, say, the internal structure of an opaque context previously accessible only through API calls, can be broken.
Of course in a perfect world, developers wouldn't do this, but we don't live in a perfect world.
K.
-
--
To the extent that I wear skirts and cheap nylon slips, I've gone native.
-- Proud descendant of semi-nomadic cattle-herders.
Well, if Microsoft made their code open source some of their drivers might come out of that... one possibly useful thing. I do agree that most of the GUI/OS code would be worse than useless though!
As Cuba Goodings might say, "Show me the source code!" 'Til then, its just talk.
Right from the "excuse the words -- (GASP!) OPEN SOURCE!".
Looks to me that MS is going to open up tiny bits of their code, so that the public percieves them as going open source, and then the rest of us that know they're actually not will sit around and bicker with them about it, making us look like nitpickers and bad guys. Or some such. They have to have something nefarious in mind - Ballmer went through the entire article trying to discredit open-source as they were talking about actually using the model.
Point is, this is all PR. There's (almost) nothing good that can come from MS open-source. It will be so heavily restricted no one could do anything but maybe fix bugs for them, but we're not about to do that for them...
-lx
Someone else brought up the point a month or so ago Even if Windows or something like it is released open source (yeah right) there is no way people can try to wade through 30 million+ lines of code that would take 7 hours to compile on a top-end machine.
Why do we want to have millions of lines of probably badly commented code for an even worse operating system? The idea of open source is so you can borrow portions of code, and I think we can all agree there's nothing in Windows we want to borrow.
"I don't call that a full embrace of the open source model," he added. "On the other hand, we're trying to understand what it is that really brings the benefit."
No, it's not a 'full embrace', a 'full embrace' is a choke-hold, and open source is a slippery little bugger.
Let's not forget, while we pat each other on the backs to celebrate the victory of open source over the tyranical Microsoft, that M$ did a lot of thinking about Digital Research, Lotus, Netscape...
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
IIRC, there are already two existing ways to get the NT source code. The first way is to be an educational or research institution and promise to give MS the right to use anything you develop. The second is to pay MS $millions for a source code license, like AT&T did. Anyone, feel free to correct me on this.
"...there are a great number of bugs that WE can't fix, because it'd break existing apps."
Where have I heard this before? Oh, yes! Macintosh System 7.0 had to preserve a number of the less desirable artifacts from System 6 to avoid breaking Word and Excel in places where they ignored Apple's programming rules. FEEEL how much pity I have for MS now.
I read this action thusly: 1. How can we ride the coattails of the "open source fad?" 2. How can we get the benefits of "open source" without opening our source? 3. How can we change the rules or definition of "open source" to our best advantage?
Our response as a community should be: 1. We will not debug commercial software _just_ because it's open source. Open-sourcing a commercial product is not an excuse to short-change quality control or publish buggy software. 2. We will not accept anything less than full source disclosure. 3. We will use the courts to prevent anyone from misusing the "Open Source" trademark. Oh, and a last point just for MS: 4. We refuse to pay real money for the "privilege" of beta-testing future products.
One Micros~1 tactic which has worked well (especially vs. DR-DOS) is to announce plans for something just to keep the public from seriously considering competing products. By the time the Micros~1 version rolls out (often much later) the enthusiasm for the competitor's product is diminished considerably. I wonder if they are thinking about this strategy again - make some teaser announcements about moving towards "open source", so that the public won't put any faith in open source that is already available: "After all, we'd be better off to wait for the Microsoft version, right?"
This sort of strategy wouldn't really dissuade the developers of open source software, because they already know what it's about and in many cases they're writing it for their own purposes anyway. But it might slow down adoption by the public of open source. If all you know are the buzzwords, then open source is good but Microsoft Windows with New Open-Source Technology(tm) is even better, right?
Some people think that Ballmer's just making crazy off-the-cuff comments when he mentions open source like this, but I think there might be a deeper motivation. If Bill Gates wanted to keep the lid on this sort of thing, he could have told Ballmer to shut up about it weeks ago. Since Ballmer keeps talking about it, Micros~1 must see some benefit in keeping open source associated with them in the press. It remains to be seen whether their approach to open source is really a shift or just more of the usual tactics from Redmond.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
It depends (shades of the Gates testimony here) on how you define "success". If success is the fact that Linux has been known and continues to be known as a powerful, stable OS with an exciting development model, then Linux is a success with many people who aren't anti-MS but are just pro-"whatever works best". On the other hand, if success means that there is viable competitor to Microsoft that distracts Microsoft from embracing and extending your software company and its products, then the anti-MS motivation is certainly more clear. Linux probably owes something to both groups, which is not necessarily a bad thing.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
If you're sick of bloated OS's and interfaces, why are you using Windows? Perhaps you should switch to PC-DOS 7.0 and find something like Lynx to use. That combo would suit your mindset a little better I think.
Digital Wokan, Tribal mage of the electronics age
While Billy boy, who hasn't quite managed to grow up and give up his adolescent world domination fantasies, gets excited about mind-staggering new technologies like electronic mail in 1996 and, like your average Bad Guy, spends his days (and nights) contemplating various ways of crushing his oh-so-inconvenient opponents, Ballmer gives credit where it's due and admits that the Open Source development model is actually working - no buts. And don't forget the briefing with Microsoft executives where he stressed that the quality of Microsoft software must be improved.
He might even be serious. If he is, I'd say he's the guy who can stop USS Microsoft from sinking into the sea of free, quality software. On the other hand, he might the proverbial last straw..
Houston, we have a problem.
I suppose you don't follow the 'lousy boxed distributions' very close. Otherwise you'd be amazed by the speed with which they improve. The GUI is already here (in whatever flavour you prefer it). Next will come the office suit. And what will remain as a reason to install Windows (DTPs and some games for example) won't be something that is made by M$.
"...the more people who will soon be back recognizing what a good thing they have in Windows, where they don't have to poke around under the hood like a Harley rider to get the machine running (again)."
Working under Linux gets easier and easier every day. For the average guy solving a problem once in a while, boosts the self confidence, yet more of them would prefer to ride the bike than to poke under the hood day in, day out.
Perhaps Linux will never be as easy to work with as Windows or Mac but there's a reason for that. Linus would never say: 'Hey guys, I decided that from now on we'll swap to a file cause Joe Redmond finds partitioning too hard". In any case I believe it will soon be easy enough even for the average PC user to jump across the platforms.
I'd be happy to admit that you could be right and I - wrong. I'm a big fan of KDE, I find it great and more beautiful, more powerful, and not less intuitive than Windows. I just meant that it is not completely finished yet and neither is GNOME. From what I've seen KDE 2.0 promisses to wipe away all other GUIs.
:-)
OTOH I cannot agree that you can separate installation from usage. To be easy to use means also to be easy to install because if you know that an installation is a no brain then you won't be afraid to tweak your system and add/remove packages.
Not that it's hard to install. With Red Hat it's a fairly simple job. The hardware recognition could be improved though. When I read the advice that one should get all settings from the Device Manager in Windows I'm always reminded that the 'world domination' will have to wait a little more.
And I also like to 'point and drool'. Heck, I like to drool without even pointing.
In almost every application that we talk to people about, people want a good price, but the most important thing is to get a platform that does the job and is reliable."
WE ALL KNOW WINDOWS DOESN'T DO THE JOB!!!
For that reason, he said the Linux open source development model is"interesting" but of limited value.
HUH?
Microsoft is now trying to determine which portions of its source code to release and whether the code should be licensed or available to everyone via the Internet, he said.
PLEASE DON'T CONSIDER RELEASING WINDOWS 3.1 TO THE PUBLIC!!!
The day Microsoft creates a product that doesn't suck, it will be known as the Microsoft Vaccuum Cleaner!
If MS suddenly went banannas and open-sourced every single app/OS they offered, would that suddenly change what everyone thought of them?
Would that make them more popular in the open source community? If it didn't, wouldn't that make the proponents of open source hypocrits?
Think about it, would you think differently about MS? After thinking about it myself, as an advocate of the 'open source movement', I came to the conclusion that I would still have the same dislike for MS, and I still wouldn't support them in any way - be it financially or otherwise. Am I the only one that comes to this conclusion?
If I'm not the only one, then this raises the question: if it really is the open-source model that is driving the success of Linux, then why wouldn't people feel differently about supporting MS if it was open-sourced?
I guess there could be lots of answers to this question. The first one that pops into my mind is that maybe it really isn't the fact that Linux is open-sourced that is creating its success, but instead the fact that Linux just isn't a MS product.
So, by following this thought process (which is fully based on my assumptions!), you can come to the conclusion that MS will not be any more successful by 'copying Linux' (and all other successful open-sourced software) and open-sourcing it's products. The only way MS can be successful is by not being MS.
Just another crazy thought that came out of yet another sleepless night.
--SONET
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. --Benjamin Franklin
> Were those comments on Java in your mind or the mind you are getting into? Whoever it is, I would The technological advances of Java can also be found in the newer versions of C++, Python, and Inferno. But to say J++ wasn't an affront to humanity is doing more than just disagreeing with the Java architecture. Java was made to keep the OS irrelavant, like it clearly should be. Especially for us coders. C++ and C do an okay job of this, as well, but J++ was made to bring back the old (and clearly wrong) thought that the OS does matter, and therefore for some mysterious reason you must pay good money to get it, just to run someone's J++ code. This is wrong, people. As linux advocates (or BSD or nerds in general), surely you see my point! Ballmer helped create the J++/Visual Basic/Sucky C++ compilers we have today. He did this not because he is a coder, but in order to force coders to chose to use Microsoft or Unix exclusively. Linux Zealots here chose Unix, and have voted with their feet by giving away code for free... just to counter Microsoft's powerful FUD machine. NOT ONE OF YOU WOULD WRITE CODE TO GET NO MONEY FOR IF YOU HAD A CHOICE IN THE MATTER. But, because microsoft is so powerful, the sad truth is there isn't much money in Linux! There's not too much money in coding for Windows, though, because most of the good programs are in turn stolen by Microsoft, so don't feel bad about your choice. But I stick with my choice: The OS is irrelavant; and someday all programs that run on only one OS will be irrelavant. -Ben (who codes C++ and Java. Corba too, sometimes.)
> Were those comments on Java in your mind or the mind you are getting into? Whoever it is, I would
The technological advances of Java can also be found in the newer versions of C++, Python, and Inferno. But to say J++ wasn't an affront to humanity is doing more than just disagreeing with the Java architecture.
Java was made to keep the OS irrelavant, like it clearly should be. Especially for us coders. C++ and C do an okay job of this, as well, but J++ was made to bring back the old (and clearly wrong) thought that the OS does matter, and therefore for some mysterious reason you must pay good money to get it, just to run someone's J++ code.
This is wrong, people. As linux advocates (or BSD or nerds in general), surely you see my point! Ballmer helped create the J++/Visual Basic/Sucky C++ compilers we have today. He did this not because he is a coder, but in order to force coders to chose to use Microsoft or Unix exclusively. Linux Zealots here chose Unix, and have voted with their feet by giving away code for free... just to counter Microsoft's powerful FUD machine.
NOT ONE OF YOU WOULD WRITE CODE TO GET NO MONEY FOR IF YOU HAD A CHOICE IN THE MATTER. But, because microsoft is so powerful, the sad truth is there isn't much money in Linux! There's not too much money in coding for Windows, though, because most of the good programs are in turn stolen by Microsoft, so don't feel bad about your choice. But I stick with my choice: The OS is irrelavant; and someday all programs that run on only one OS will be irrelavant.
-Ben
(who codes C++ and Java. Corba too, sometimes.)
Folks, I'd like to remind you this is Steve Balmer we are talking about. He's not a coder, not even like Bill Gates is. Gates has been silent on the issue, because he doesn't want to be involved. Balmer doesn't know code, he doesn't know software, he only knows two things: marketting and money.
Let's get inside his head, people. He "knows" that:
1) Open Source is a buzzword. Like JAVA (come on, here people, this is a trend), it is open and yet strangely helps another company more than them, and other big companies like IBM are embracing it. Just like java. Hmmm...
2) Linux is a rival operating system, it runs on Intel hardware. It's just like OS/2. Pay it lip service about what it doesn't do yet, while they are light years ahead. Don't give it any more apps.
3) GNU is a bunch of kooks who think software should be free. Cast them as ranting lunatics who have an idea (Open Source) that is now theirs (yoink). Then spread FUD about 'em. (Do you want these hippies making YOUR software? Or someone you know has your best interests in mind because you've given us all your money??)
4) Call your broker and congradulate your stock owners. Enjoy a short vacation somewhere tropical and come back in time to destroy BeOS while praising it. "This would have been a great operating system, but as you can clearly see they do nothing useful, while our system does everything and for less money. We recomend you keep giving us your money and ignore these guys."
-Ben
If/when MS decides to do *something* like opening up source code I would guess they will provide something like an enhanced SDK.
Steve Ballmer made references to helping end-users to understand database integration better so this would make sense. Maybe mix in some chunks of code with some api calls and blitz the press with statements about how forward thinking MS is.
I would love to be a bug in the Redmond campus when they are trying to figure out what to do with this open source *thing.* I think they will almost have to appear to embrace it somehow, or else they come off looking bad. Looking bad is bad for business and for MS image is everything.
Ah well...back to work...
"Technically, a partial Open Source strategy for Microsoft will work about as well as those of Apple and Al Gore. They will
:-|
not get any assistance from the hacker community at large. "
Just one thing; apple's open source is just as good as Netscape's.
My personal view is that they are better than BSD but way inferior GPL...
Microsoft will probably choose this half-good kind of lisence to, but only with more of the BAD stuff added to it
De lyckliga slavarna är frihetens bittraste fiender, legalisera!!!
theyre not bugs theyre features?
p.s. does the billborg really wear that red bionic eye?
-- your knees hurt, don't they?
Speak the truth. It's a novel approach in this biz, but it's the Open Source approach. When you get your favorite Linux distro, the source CD says "Here's how we did it!" There is no back-room stuff about how this stuff is put together. You get the stuff with the blueprints.
The truth is that half-hearted OSS doesn't work. OSS contributors won't contribute if they feel that they are being used, and those contributors tend to know if they are or not. Does OSS work as a post-proprietary conversion? The experiments in Netscape and Apple are still taking place. We'll tell people the truth when we figure out what it is.
Our advantage over Microsoft is that we cherish the truth, and we share it promiscuously. Never let them take that advantage away from us. The truth shall set your code free.
--The basis of all love is respect
1: Microsoft does nothing remotely like Open Source. Business as usual.
2: Microsoft fully embraces Open Source and copylefts the entirety of Windows. By embracing I mean getting the mindset, and believing in it. Nothing less than Netscape's own buy-in would really count. This would take nothing less than a certifyable miracle (or heavy drugs). If this happens, a beautiful thing will happen. A fully Open Source Windows would turn into something worth running in a few years.
3: Microsoft pays lip service to Open Source and tries to fit it into their current business model. They try to embrace and extend OSS, for development gain and/or mindshare gain.
If they choose option 3, they play to their own weakness and will lose in both development cycles and mindshare.
Technically, a partial Open Source strategy for Microsoft will work about as well as those of Apple and Al Gore. They will not get any assistance from the hacker community at large.
Regarding mindshare, they will gain kudos only with those who think that Open Source is a Good Thing, but don't have a clue about what it is. I am not cynical enough to believe that there is a significant population of PHBs who meet those criteria.
We hold the advantage precisely because Open Source is so antiintuitive. If one knows a little about Open Source, one concludes that the OSS buzz is coming from certified lunatics. One has to fully grok OSS to think that it's useful. even most PHBs think that Open Source is some form of madness. Those who think that OSS is a Good Thing are, by and large, those who understand it. And they will see the problems with a half-hearted approach.
There are some that belive in the Gospel According to Bill; the term Open Source will turn from evil to wonderful the instant Microsoft "embraces" it. However, Microsoft can gain mindshare out of mindless MS zealots by releasing the Bill Gates Cardio Kickboxing workout DVD-ROM.
--The basis of all love is respect
Gates has been silent on the issue, because he doesn't want to be involved
And Ballmer is simply incapable of keeping silent on any topic...
Anyone seen an interview with this guy?
He could be the poster child for Attention Deficit Disorder.
Steve, buddy - some free advice... cut down on the stimulants.. remember, Ritalin is your friend.
It sounds like flame bait, but it isn't. What happens is that they first "talk" about a new project. What they're really doing is throwing the topic into the air to collect comments. So, when Microsoft talks, they are actually listening. They listen to what everyone says. Then they go and make a very bad version 1.0 of it. People tell them what's wrong with it, and now they've got a version 1.1 of it.
(One could go on to say that people then start requesting things they want added, and version 2.0 appears. Then people tell them what's wrong with it again, and version 2.1 is born. And so on. You get the picture... you're a Slashdotter, right?)
So, Balmer announces to the media that "We're thinking about Open Source!" He gives a little tidbit or two of a thought. Now the real Microsoft army goes to work... The Media... and as much as I hate to say it... Slashdot too! People discuss the ramifications, hammer out the issues, raise the important points. Microsoft harvests the results of the collective IQ they focused on the issue. And if they don't get quite enough, they announce it again! And when they harvest enough, either the project is aborted, or Version 1.0 Open Source License is born.
Microsoft is watching. Express your view! Discuss the treasures and traps of Open Source licensing. Tell them how they can embrace, extend, and corrupt the Open Source system. Aren't they evil? You got to love Microsoft like you love Darth Vader. I'm just waiting for Bill to take the mask off.
Windows 2000 has *how* many billion lines of code?
;)
NT 4 has about 5, maybe 6 million lines. W2K is slated to to 30 million.
My guess is that they have reached a point where MS VC++ simply looks at the code, and says "no way, man"
Erm, I don't think it's likely to all be in one file, you know.
IMHO, Open Source is the only way for MS-Windows to survive in the long run.
Why?
Surely any product can survive as long as it's better than the competition? For most users, the (sad?) truth is that Windows is a better bet than Linux because it's more accessible and offers a wider range of applications... it's those two points that the OSS community need to address in order to make Linux more palatable on the desktop...
(As always, my _very_ humble opinion
Cheers
Alastair
-- "I believe the human being and the fish can coexist peacefully." - George W. Bush, 29 September 2000
Read this as "It's so broke we need help to fix it." Seriously.
Windows 2000 has *how* many billion lines of code? My guess is that they have reached a point where MS VC++ simply looks at the code, and says "no way, man"
They won't be able to ship a *working* Win2000, but that doesn't mean people won't pay good money for it. If they open some of the source, it will give them a chance to free their developers to work on the closed off bits.
IMHO, Open Source is the only way for MS-Windows to survive in the long run. I doubt the freaks at Microsoft know this yet though :)