This "booster rocket" idea got me thinking, and while the GPL would prevent a closed source MS-Linux, I got to wondering about other licenses, like BSD.
What if Microsoft took FreeBSD, ported IE and some of their other programs, removed all the source and released it as (snicker) FreeWin. As time goes on, they make more and more changes to its underlying structure, making it incompatible with the opensource version. Would this destroy BSD? No. Who wins in this situation? Wait for it now...everyone.
Microsoft wins because they get to sell something else for an obscene amount of money. Yadda yadda yadda.
The opensource community does not lose because of this, and proof of this is in the fact that the opensource community exists at all. FreeWin might be Bigger and Better(TM), but those of us who use opensource won't drop it simply because of that. In fact, it might have the added bonus of enticing people to check out the opensource version. At the very least, it'd provide some good press for opensource (if it's good enough for microsoft, it's good enough to use as our server, sir). FreeBSD will not dry up and disappear because Microsoft stole and "improved" their code. I firmly believe that most people who work on and with FreeBSD do it mostly because of the "Free", and because of "BSD" secondly. The same goes for the other BSDs as well, but using NetBSD for the "Net" didn't have quite the same ring to it...
Anyway, everyone who uses this product wins because it's Microsoft sanctioned (they can deal with all the tech-support calls) and compared to Microsoft's usual fare, it's a superior product -- for now anyway. We might be back in blue-screen land after it's been Microsofted enough.
Microsoft would never do this anyway, because it's too much of a shift from their easy-2-use ideology. Taking Linux or BSD and making it all pointy-clicky and eliminating all the little "gotchas" that make it so much fun to set up and use would take more work than stuffing some more goodies into Windows. Even releasing a version with the intent to destroy the opensource threat wouldn't work because the people they are trying to lure away wouldn't use it simply because it's closed source.
Opensource exists because we use it. It is a Good Idea. Many of us are hackers at heart, and the thought of not being able to get inside and tinker with the internals is enough to give us nightmares. We may end up playing an eternal game of "catch up" with the proprietary folks, but that's happening now.
Slashdot Mirror
What if Microsoft took FreeBSD, ported IE and some of their other programs, removed all the source and released it as (snicker) FreeWin. As time goes on, they make more and more changes to its underlying structure, making it incompatible with the opensource version. Would this destroy BSD? No. Who wins in this situation? Wait for it now...everyone.
Microsoft wins because they get to sell something else for an obscene amount of money. Yadda yadda yadda.
The opensource community does not lose because of this, and proof of this is in the fact that the opensource community exists at all. FreeWin might be Bigger and Better(TM), but those of us who use opensource won't drop it simply because of that. In fact, it might have the added bonus of enticing people to check out the opensource version. At the very least, it'd provide some good press for opensource (if it's good enough for microsoft, it's good enough to use as our server, sir). FreeBSD will not dry up and disappear because Microsoft stole and "improved" their code. I firmly believe that most people who work on and with FreeBSD do it mostly because of the "Free", and because of "BSD" secondly. The same goes for the other BSDs as well, but using NetBSD for the "Net" didn't have quite the same ring to it...
Anyway, everyone who uses this product wins because it's Microsoft sanctioned (they can deal with all the tech-support calls) and compared to Microsoft's usual fare, it's a superior product -- for now anyway. We might be back in blue-screen land after it's been Microsofted enough.
Microsoft would never do this anyway, because it's too much of a shift from their easy-2-use ideology. Taking Linux or BSD and making it all pointy-clicky and eliminating all the little "gotchas" that make it so much fun to set up and use would take more work than stuffing some more goodies into Windows. Even releasing a version with the intent to destroy the opensource threat wouldn't work because the people they are trying to lure away wouldn't use it simply because it's closed source.
Opensource exists because we use it. It is a Good Idea. Many of us are hackers at heart, and the thought of not being able to get inside and tinker with the internals is enough to give us nightmares. We may end up playing an eternal game of "catch up" with the proprietary folks, but that's happening now.