The question is, what would Microsoft have to win or to loose from publishing part of its sources. And which part would they publish.
And if someone would like to distribute a modified version why not? You would still be required to have a license for Windows to run it.
Now, I would like to be able to change a few things in Windows (like everything except for the GUI). The actual core of the OS is not so great anyway.
(I wonder if ReiserFS is better than NTFS. Did anyone do any benchmarks? It might not be so easy to compare separate components of two OSes. I am inclined to think Reiser is better.)
(by the way, is it possible to change the FS of the partition Windows is booting from, even without having access to the source code? like studying the ddk and writing and replacing some dlls? )
Why don't they make sources public?
It's not like Windows works so well that everybody wanted to copy it.
I guess it's because once the sources become available there would be much easier to make a windows clone. WINE is getting closer anyway, but still has a lot to go.
And also, who would stop you from turning your Home edition into the Server one by replacing some components with third party ones (possibly free ones).
I think most people would buy and use the Official Windows Version anyway. It's a matter of psychology. Microsoft could then make agreements with third parties to include their changes in the official distribution. I think there are people that would contribute code for free only if they were given the chance to modify their windows.
about which parts they could open:
It wouldn't make sense to publish the code for Office, but next to that I think the GUI they should be interested in keeping secret, because that's what they have best. They could make public the parts that don't really work well.
Slashdot Mirror
The question is, what would Microsoft have to win or to loose from publishing part of its sources. And which part would they publish.
And if someone would like to distribute a modified version why not? You would still be required to have a license for Windows to run it.
Now, I would like to be able to change a few things in Windows (like everything except for the GUI). The actual core of the OS is not so great anyway.
(I wonder if ReiserFS is better than NTFS. Did anyone do any benchmarks? It might not be so easy to compare separate components of two OSes. I am inclined to think Reiser is better.)
(by the way, is it possible to change the FS of the partition Windows is booting from, even without having access to the source code? like studying the ddk and writing and replacing some dlls? )
Why don't they make sources public?
It's not like Windows works so well that everybody wanted to copy it.
I guess it's because once the sources become available there would be much easier to make a windows clone. WINE is getting closer anyway, but still has a lot to go.
And also, who would stop you from turning your Home edition into the Server one by replacing some components with third party ones (possibly free ones).
I think most people would buy and use the Official Windows Version anyway. It's a matter of psychology. Microsoft could then make agreements with third parties to include their changes in the official distribution. I think there are people that would contribute code for free only if they were given the chance to modify their windows.
about which parts they could open: It wouldn't make sense to publish the code for Office, but next to that I think the GUI they should be interested in keeping secret, because that's what they have best. They could make public the parts that don't really work well.