Microsoft says open source Windows is "definitely possible"
101 replies, posted
"It's definitely possible.... but you'd be tripping if you think we'd ever do that."
[QUOTE=Superwafflez;47456094]I'm genuinely interested in how this is possible, given you could probably just build from source?[/quote]
Trademarks. You can fork their code, but you're not allowed to use their trademark. Mozilla does this with Firefox, which is why "Iceweasel" and "IceCat" exist.
[QUOTE=Billy2600;47458858]Trademarks. You can fork their code, but you're not allowed to use their trademark. Mozilla does this with Firefox, which is why "Iceweasel" and "IceCat" exist.[/QUOTE]
So really they are relying on people's goodwill to actually purchase the software.
That's an interesting level of trust.
[QUOTE=Brandy92;47459301]So really they are relying on people's goodwill to actually purchase the software.
That's an interesting level of trust.[/QUOTE]
And it Works! many filmmake/sound artists and heck, even game developers release they work at torrent websites, those who want to pirate, WILL PIRATE! you cant stop them, and people it's realizing this now, fight agaisnt pirate it's useless lol
[QUOTE=hexpunK;47456422]Possibly. I have no idea how Red Hat and CentOS handle it, but you could include a licensing system in the OS, people who really want it would be able to strip that out easily, but it'd stop a lot of people from "simply" compiling it.
Or just only offer premium support for bought versions of the OS, which is where a lot of the reasons to but Red Hat lie for example.[/QUOTE]
A lot of the perks of RHEL comes from services, support, and software licenses. Things only a commercial business could offer. CentOS is literally the community version, that lacks those premium features, but functions identically otherwise. Businesses still buy RHEL because of the support that comes with it.
[QUOTE=Brandy92;47459301]So really they are relying on people's goodwill to actually purchase the software.
That's an interesting level of trust.[/QUOTE]
Often you get a higher priority with eventual technical support if you can show the certificate that you actually purchased the program.
But yeah, goodwill isn't dead, just think of The Humble Indie Bundle.
[QUOTE=wickedplayer494;47452840]Or this, making the old stuff open source. That'd definitely be fun to work with.[/QUOTE]
Would be useful as well, no one so far has really tried 3.1 emulation. The only way I know of to get through is to install it in virtualization software or installing it in DOSBOX which makes redistribution impossible unless you do a deal with Microsoft.
[QUOTE=Genericenemy;47461515]Would be useful as well, no one so far has really tried 3.1 emulation. The only way I know of to get through is to install it in virtualization software or installing it in DOSBOX which makes redistribution impossible unless you do a deal with Microsoft.[/QUOTE]
3.1 and 3.11 is actually mostly a shell/GUI for Dos.
So it's a piece of cake to get working in DOSBOX.
Windows 95 and upwards are a whole 'nother story.
[QUOTE=Superwafflez;47456094]I'm genuinely interested in how this is possible, given you could probably just build from source?
[editline]4th April 2015[/editline]
My workplace still uses Windows 2000 for POS terminals.[/QUOTE]
They can release the source code under w/e conditions they want. They could just say you're not allow to re-distribute, source, binaries,
or distribute anything produced with the assistance of their source code and tools. And restrict usage if you're a corporation.
Opensource doesn't imply, you can do w/e you want with the source code.
And yeah, you can go ahead and privately download the source, compile it. And then you can deploy it on your own machine. And you'd be the 0.01% of the copies they sell. Because OEMs and large companies wouldn't get away with it, if their license doesn't allow them too.
[QUOTE=Rixxz2;47455900]yes, SSL is the same thing as an extremely complex operating system[/QUOTE]
SSL is a minefield. I'd trust far less competent teams to design an operating system than an SSL implementation.
[QUOTE=Van-man;47456137]The primary users of OpenSSL were the type of corporations and organisations who sported the "ignorance is bliss" mentality.
It was a rough but much needed wakeup call for them.
And the incident did also create scrutiny of other open-source security related projects, so the end result is that the "don't know, don't care" mentality is now less common.
Which is good, because skepticism is good in healthy doses, and ultimately leads to things being done in a better way.[/QUOTE]
Which makes OpenSSL a great argument for open source. If it was closed, nobody would've noticed how terrible it was.
[QUOTE=Rixxz2;47455665]And you can't compare Windows to GNU/Linux in any way shape or form when it comes to things like this[/QUOTE]
Linux is the most widely deployed server operating system. Lots of large companies use it for critical infrastructure. Of course, the kernel isn't the only thing that makes up the operating system, but nearly the entirety of software bundled with Linux distributions is open source. How is it not comparable?
Windows will not go open source. If you think it's a good business move from microsoft you have no idea... pretty much every decision microsoft (or in fact any other tech company, google etc) make is aimed towards businesses, not general consumers. Can't even express how much money they'd lose if they did this. Would basically be the killer blow to the office365 platform.
I see most people in this thread wanting open source are people who are obviously interested in computing and coding but have no idea how the business world works. I'm 100% in agreement that making it open source would benefit the operating system but no business is going to use an operating system where anyone can view the source code, it's crazy to even suggest that it couldnt be used to find exploits and target businesses. There is a reason most companies pay thousands of pounds a year just for systems that stop phising emails and such - even medium sized companies are under constant threat from hackers etc. If you genuinely think that it wouldn't lose microsoft a shit tonne of money you have clearly no experience working in a B2B office or a tech based company. Most IT people are skeptical of the cloud let alone this. Stupid for the CEO to even suggest it publicly, could lose them a lot of money.
To be honest if you disagree with this you've obviously never worked in the IT sales industry. It's hard enough to get people off Exchange 2003 let alone getting them to agree to a dramatic change like that.
[QUOTE=fragger0;47465729]Windows will not go open source. If you think it's a good business move from microsoft you have no idea... pretty much every decision microsoft (or in fact any other tech company, google etc) make is aimed towards businesses, not general consumers. Can't even express how much money they'd lose if they did this. Would basically be the killer blow to the office365 platform.[/QUOTE]
Selling to businesses is pretty much the only position in which the "free open source software, paid support" business model works.
[QUOTE=DrTaxi;47465748]Selling to businesses is pretty much the only position in which the "free open source software, paid support" business model works.[/QUOTE]
Do you have any idea how hard it is to even try to sell cloud computing to the IT dinosaurs that control the IT in businesses... making your OS open source would basically be like telling your clients to fuck off, not renew their contracts and move to google platforms.
[QUOTE=fragger0;47465791]Do you have any idea how hard it is to even try to sell cloud computing to the IT dinosaurs that control the IT in businesses... making your OS open source would basically be like telling your clients to fuck off, not renew their contracts and move to google platforms.[/QUOTE]
I've had to work with those "IT dinosaurs" before.
Windows going open source is not gonna remove their need for a platform they can run their Exchange and SharePoint and what have you on. Nor their need for support when shit breaks. And it's certainly not going to take away their trust in their neat Enterprise(tm) Microsoft platform - and distrust of everything else, which is exactly why it's so hard to sell them ~cloud computing~.
[QUOTE=DrTaxi;47465836]I've had to work with those "IT dinosaurs" before.
Windows going open source is not gonna remove their need for a platform they can run their Exchange and SharePoint and what have you on. Nor their need for support when shit breaks. And it's certainly not going to take away their trust in their neat Enterprise(tm) Microsoft platform - and distrust of everything else, which is exactly why it's so hard to sell them ~cloud computing~.[/QUOTE]
100% it will take away their trust in the platform, not need. The only reason 90% of them don't want to move to the cloud is because of security issues - they're very aware of the numerous benefits but often director or board level decisions are that cloud isn't 'secure' enough. Going open source would make the cloud seem the extremely safe option as opposed to using something open source.
Going open source doesn't change anything for them though. With moving to the cloud, they'd have to start trusting the cloud providers to keep their systems secure. With Windows going open source, they'd just have to keep trusting Microsoft's software quality assurance. And I'm sure some MS [I]evangelist[/I] could sway their concerns.
[QUOTE=fragger0;47465791]Do you have any idea how hard it is to even try to sell cloud computing to the IT dinosaurs that control the IT in businesses... making your OS open source would basically be like telling your clients to fuck off, not renew their contracts and move to google platforms.[/QUOTE]
[URL="https://www.redhat.com/wapps/store/catalog.html"]Well it works for Red Hat, sooooo...[/URL]
People seem to confuse open source and licensing. Just because something is open source does not mean you are permitted to use it commercially without a license. Unreal Engine 4 is open source but the license states that after X profits you must pay royalties.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;47467888]People seem to confuse open source and licensing. Just because something is open source does not mean you are permitted to use it commercially without a license. Unreal Engine 4 is open source but the license states that after X profits you must pay royalties.[/QUOTE]
Nah, Open Source is pretty clearly defined as "you can freely redistribute it", while there's no proper term for "software whose source code is available to licensees but not freely redistributable".
[QUOTE=DrTaxi;47468213]Nah, Open Source is pretty clearly defined as "you can freely redistribute it", while there's no proper term for "software whose source code is available to licensees but not freely redistributable".[/QUOTE]I can't tell if this is sarcasm
[QUOTE=Van-man;47455678]You'd be amazed by the amount of hackjobs there is in the official part of the Linux Kernel.
Also the amount of swearing.[/QUOTE]
I have a fortune file that's full of this kind of shit.
[code]/*
* Please skip to the bottom of this file if you ate lunch recently
* -- Alan
*/
-- from Linux kernel pre-2.1.91-1[/code]
[code]#define FALSE 0 /* This is the naked Truth */
#define TRUE 1 /* and this is the Light */
-- mailto.c
[/code]
[code]#if _FP_W_TYPE_SIZE < 64
#error "Only stud muffins allowed, schmuck."
#endif
-- linux/arch/sparc64/quad.c
[/code]
if anyone tells you Linux is professional code, tell them to actually look at it.
[QUOTE=lavacano;47469876]I have a fortune file that's full of this kind of shit.
[code]/*
* Please skip to the bottom of this file if you ate lunch recently
* -- Alan
*/
-- from Linux kernel pre-2.1.91-1[/code]
[code]#define FALSE 0 /* This is the naked Truth */
#define TRUE 1 /* and this is the Light */
-- mailto.c
[/code]
[code]#if _FP_W_TYPE_SIZE < 64
#error "Only stud muffins allowed, schmuck."
#endif
-- linux/arch/sparc64/quad.c
[/code]
if anyone tells you Linux is professional code, tell them to actually look at it.[/QUOTE]
Like any code project of that scale, size and age is 100% professional.
It's the same deal in engineering, all those hidden botch-jobs that happened to make it all work as expected without breaking down.
[QUOTE=Van-man;47470172]Like any code project of that scale, size and age is 100% professional.
It's the same deal in engineering, all those hidden botch-jobs that happened to make it all work as expected without breaking down.[/QUOTE]
Makes sense. Make it work first, optimize later. If ever.
[QUOTE=fragger0;47465729]Windows will not go open source. If you think it's a good business move from microsoft you have no idea... pretty much every decision microsoft (or in fact any other tech company, google etc) make is aimed towards businesses, not general consumers. Can't even express how much money they'd lose if they did this. Would basically be the killer blow to the office365 platform.
I see most people in this thread wanting open source are people who are obviously interested in computing and coding but have no idea how the business world works. I'm 100% in agreement that making it open source would benefit the operating system but no business is going to use an operating system where anyone can view the source code, it's crazy to even suggest that it couldnt be used to find exploits and target businesses. There is a reason most companies pay thousands of pounds a year just for systems that stop phising emails and such - even medium sized companies are under constant threat from hackers etc. If you genuinely think that it wouldn't lose microsoft a shit tonne of money you have clearly no experience working in a B2B office or a tech based company. Most IT people are skeptical of the cloud let alone this. Stupid for the CEO to even suggest it publicly, could lose them a lot of money.
To be honest if you disagree with this you've obviously never worked in the IT sales industry. It's hard enough to get people off Exchange 2003 let alone getting them to agree to a dramatic change like that.[/QUOTE]
no no, you don't understand, the developers will always magically have the upper hand, also, a single resistor is just as easy to exploit/hard to protect as an entire circuitboard is
[QUOTE=lavacano;47469876]I have a fortune file that's full of this kind of shit.
[code]/*
* Please skip to the bottom of this file if you ate lunch recently
* -- Alan
*/
-- from Linux kernel pre-2.1.91-1[/code]
[code]#define FALSE 0 /* This is the naked Truth */
#define TRUE 1 /* and this is the Light */
-- mailto.c
[/code]
[code]#if _FP_W_TYPE_SIZE < 64
#error "Only stud muffins allowed, schmuck."
#endif
-- linux/arch/sparc64/quad.c
[/code]
if anyone tells you Linux is professional code, tell them to actually look at it.[/QUOTE]
but I can pretty much guarantee you that the source for Windows has all kinds of weird/stupid shit in it as well, especially seeing as they don't expect anyone to find it
[QUOTE=lavacano;47469876]I have a fortune file that's full of this kind of shit.
[code]/*
* Please skip to the bottom of this file if you ate lunch recently
* -- Alan
*/
-- from Linux kernel pre-2.1.91-1[/code]
[code]#define FALSE 0 /* This is the naked Truth */
#define TRUE 1 /* and this is the Light */
-- mailto.c
[/code]
[code]#if _FP_W_TYPE_SIZE < 64
#error "Only stud muffins allowed, schmuck."
#endif
-- linux/arch/sparc64/quad.c
[/code]
if anyone tells you Linux is professional code, tell them to actually look at it.[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=0df1f2487d2f0d04703f142813d53615d62a1da4"]And from the Makefile:[/URL]
[code]NAME = Diseased Newt[/code]
[QUOTE=Adam.GameDev;47474726][URL="http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=0df1f2487d2f0d04703f142813d53615d62a1da4"]And from the Makefile:[/URL]
[code]NAME = Diseased Newt[/code][/QUOTE]
Thought that's something? The 4.0 kernel's called [URL=http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=c517d838eb7d07bbe9507871fab3931deccff539]"Hurr durr I'ma sheep"[/URL].
Windows 2000 already went open source
[editline]7th April 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rahu X;47453585]They have the idea of open sourcing windows leading to more malware and exploits cropping up, but they forget that those can be thwarted just as soon as they appear because of the potentially thousands of developers contributing to the codebase.[/QUOTE]
Theoretically, but MS wouldn't approve any of those devs to work on the main project. I doubt there would be as many people approved for windows as are approved for the Linux kernel.
[QUOTE=Mkt778;47474677]Sweet.
Can't wait till somebody makes the registry real time so I don't have to restart every time I install a new program.[/QUOTE]
If it was that easy I'm pretty sure Microsoft would've already done it. They aren't that incompetent, you know.
[QUOTE=Mkt778;47474677]Sweet.
Can't wait till somebody makes the registry real time so I don't have to restart every time I install a new program.[/QUOTE]
Technically, the registry IS real time. That's why you can't simply undo changes unless you have a backup or remember what you did. Once you make a change and click OK, its saved. Most programs only load keys on initial start though. Restarting the PC just ensures that the new registry keys are loaded by closing and reloading everything. Its an overkill solution that's guaranteed to avoid issues.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.