Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Programming Technology

A Perspective on Microsoft's Shared Source 179

Posted by CowboyNeal from the redmond-done-right dept.
Masa writes "ONLamp has an insightful article by Stephen R. Walli about Microsoft Shared Source Initiative and some thoughts, what it would really mean if Microsoft would open-source their operating system. The article gives a nice perspective on the Shared Source Initiative and what it is meant to be. It also shows that even if it might look that Microsoft doesn't understand the value of open source, there actually are some projects under the OSI-approved licenses, for example the WiX Toolset, which is a good example of a successful open source project by Microsoft."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Perspective on Microsoft's Shared Source More

A Perspective on Microsoft's Shared Source

Comments Filter:

  • It would mean... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 28, 2005 @08:37AM (#12065303)
    what it would really mean if Microsoft would open-source their operating system
    It would mean that hell froze over and that monkeys are flying out of my ass.

  • In case of /.ing (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 28, 2005 @08:37AM (#12065307)
    Perspectives on the Shared Source Initiative
    by Stephen R. Walli
    03/24/2005

    Nat Torkington and I were discussing Microsoft's Shared Source Initiative not long ago. I left Microsoft in early December and had spent the last three years directly involved in various aspects of Shared Source work. The more we discussed his questions, the more we realized others probably shared the same questions. This article came from that realization.

    Microsoft began pushing the idea of "shared source" a few years ago as a way to talk about source code sharing exercises they continue to develop in the face of open source software practices. The idea holds the premise that they will share the source code of their software appropriately with appropriate audiences. Free and open source software was happening all around them. They were certainly thinking about the phenomena all the way back to the original Halloween document in October 1998. After talking to many of their customers, they discovered that many Windows developers did want access to read code and debug against it, but not necessarily modify the code. There was even an early university program for academic access, but this early program was not particularly popular. By Spring 2001, Microsoft needed to have an active position on the open source phenomena, and thus launched the Shared Source Initiative.

    I will not discuss the past executive miscommunication and misconception, or the marketing rhetoric, but will look at what Shared Source is and some of the challenges open source presents to a large publicly traded company.

    First, recognize that Shared Source isn't one program with one license. Shared Source is an umbrella program for all source sharing programs from Microsoft. Any time Microsoft makes source code available through a program, it brands it as part of the Shared Source Initiative, the marketing machine has the message to deliver, and a new program ends up on the Microsoft Shared Source website. These licenses span the spectrum from very locked down, look-but-don't-touch licenses to licenses approved by the OSI, and everything in between.

    Most people imagine Shared Source as an avenue to open sourcing Microsoft's key product assets and are disappointed when they see restrictive licenses and difficult eligibility requirements. It's easy to assume that clearly Microsoft doesn't "get it" with open source, or more deliberately is generating confusion in the marketplace. Microsoft has a breadth of software assets and artifacts. The sharing program eligibility and licensing reflects the value of the software asset to shareholders. On one end of this software spectrum are the narrow-eligibility, high-liability programs around the Windows and Office core revenue generating assets (e.g. Government Security Program, Enterprise Source License Program, etc.) There is tightly controlled access to the code, with restrictions on what people can do with it (often read or debug or limited modification without redistribution rights). The penalties for license breach are high.

    These restricted "sharing" programs are tied to the core revenue generating products for the company. (Take a look at the recent quarterly SEC filing. Go to the last page on revenues. Add Client plus Server and Tools and compare that to the total.) The responsibility of the executives to shareholders kicks in pretty quickly. They must take a worst-case, conservative view of the risks (brand damage, legal, revenue stagnation, engineering costs). They must have some form of hard data to support the premise that the more they open the source code base then the more revenue will grow. With these key revenue generating software assets, the company is essentially caught between the shareholders and customer base.
    Opening Windows

    Related Reading
    Understanding Open Source and Free Software Licensing

    Understanding Open Source and Free Software Licensing
    By Andrew M. St. Laurent
    Table of Contents
    Index
    Sample Chapter

    Read Online--Saf
    • I agree. I never expected MS to open source Windows or Office; that would, indeed, make we propose an expedition to Hell with thermometers.

      BUT... Why not open source VB6? And anything else they want to EOL. That would gain them a ton of (sometimes grudging) street cred in the OSS community.

      And make a *lot* of people happy, including some who are rather unhappy today.

  • When... (Score:3, Funny)

    by TheKidWho ( 705796 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @08:38AM (#12065311)
    Microsoft Open Sources Windows, its a sign of the antichrist coming.

  • MS DOES understand the value of open source (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anita Coney ( 648748 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @08:39AM (#12065317) Homepage
    The people at Microsoft aren't stupid. They completely understand open source. But, they also understand the value of a closed proprietary system. Microsoft earns 80% profit margins on Office and Windows. When Red Hat earns that kind of profit, then Microsoft might switch.
    • I'm sure if that margin ever goes down they will be more than happy to drop their price to compete. They have a lot of market and finachel support so they aren't going to go down without a fight

      • Re:MS DOES understand the value of open source (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Anita Coney ( 648748 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @08:51AM (#12065389) Homepage
        Exactly, the outrageous profit margins Microsoft makes will allow it to make outrageous price concessions if a competitor ever does arise on the desktop.

        But the problem for Microsoft is that it's basically a house of cards. Every other facet of Microsoft loses money other than Office and Windows. If either of those fail, the entire company would fail with it. That's why it is so desperate to do something different, e.g., Xbox, WebTV, WinCE, search, Windows Media Video 9/HD-DVD, etc. Thus, if Microsoft was forced to lower prices on Office/Windows, they'd have to start dumping all of their money losing areas to stay afloat.

        When I look at Microsoft that way, I think of the first Predator movie, with the well armed troops, shooting around at random, and hitting nothing.
        • When I look at Microsoft that way, I think of the first Predator movie, with the well armed troops, shooting around at random, and hitting nothing.

          But one of those "well armed troops" eventually kills that which he cannot at first see. Microsoft, so well armed (lots of cash), could really mess stuff up before the end if it gets backed into a corner and becomes desperate.

        • Every other facet of Microsoft loses money other than Office and Windows.

          Afaik xbox just crossed the line where it started bringing in more money than it costs(don't quite remember if that is across the whole line or just over 1 quarter tho). Without wanting to sound like an apologist, MS can afford to start up a project on a long term basis, as opposed to a lot of companies that can't seem to look beyond the next quarterly results. As for dropping prices on windows and office, well, they'd be making shi
        • But the problem for Microsoft is that it's basically a house of cards. Every other facet of Microsoft loses money other than Office and Windows.

          I'm sorry, but you're uninformed. It's really easy to research the facts a bit, rather than just parroting slashbot folklore. Find the numbers as presented by Microsoft here [microsoft.com]. Or, if you want a simplified presentation look here [nwsource.com] for a nice graph with Microsoft's revenue per division. Note that four out of seven divisions are profitable (and, for the last quarter, t

    • Re:MS DOES understand the value of open source (Score:5, Funny)

      by PepeGSay ( 847429 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @08:43AM (#12065349)
      Exactly. Microsoft sell an OS and gives away T-Shirts. RedHat sells t-shirts and gives away an OS.

    • Re:MS DOES understand the value of open source (Score:5, Insightful)

      by natrius ( 642724 ) * <niran@@@niran...org> on Monday March 28, 2005 @08:54AM (#12065400) Homepage
      A closed, proprietary system is valuable to the software vendor, but not to its customers. As the benefits from switching to open systems begin to outweigh the costs, Microsoft's profit margins will decrease. Red Hat will never have the profit margins that Microsoft does, because the properties of closed systems that generate these margins inherently conflict with open systems (e.g. vendor lock-in). Microsoft will not be able to maintain their current profit margins as open systems improve. Until this happens, it would be foolish for Microsoft to drastically alter their business model.
      • A closed, proprietary system is valuable to the software vendor, but not to its customers.

        Nonsense. I'm a customer of Microsoft (I own a Windows box, 2 Windows laptops, Visual Studio, among other software) and their software benefits me. Would it benefit me more if it was open sourced? No, just like most Linux devs don't actually perform code fixes on the kernel, I wouldn't perform fixes on the Windows kernel.

        Grated, there are some theoretical benefits in open sourcing Windows (more eyes == more secure),

    • Re:MS DOES understand the value of open source (Score:5, Interesting)

      by krumms ( 613921 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @09:11AM (#12065472) Journal
      When Red Hat earns that kind of profit, then Microsoft might switch.

      Well, that will never happen then. The big money in Open Source is always going to be made through services rather than software. If Microsoft open sourced office and windows, they'd have to suddenly completely change their business model.

      It would be a stupid idea business idea from anybody's perspective.
    • RH would make that kind of money if RH Linux only, and nothing else, were sold with a PC. It's only the grip of MS on the OEMs that allows MS to charge so much. MS aren't stupid because they've distorted the market to their profit margins. So we're back to dodgy business practices rather than closed/open source, which I think is a non sequitur in this case.

      I think MS don't want to open their source for many other reasons, mostly atavistic, but partially going back to Mr Bill's letter to hobbyists in the 80

    • Re:MS DOES understand the value of open source (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      > The people at Microsoft aren't stupid. They completely understand open source.

      I'm really not sure about that. There's a seriously self-reinforcing culture at MS, with an almost messianic air, that Microsoft platforms everywhere would usher in some of technological renaissance, or at least just make everything smooth and easy. I'm not sure that kind of mindset allows for many competing views to come in.

      Come to think of it, it doesn't sound all that different than this other worldview...

  • YAWN (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Microsoft are pushing for patents so they can open source their OS and kill the "open source" threat.

    -captain obvious
    • Exactly, because they really enjoyed being submarined on their own technology by Eolas.

      • Re:YAWN (Score:2, Informative)

        by WindBourne ( 631190 )
        MS did not create anything. It was shown that Eolas introduced MS to the technology, and then MS told them that it was worthless and they would not use it. However, MS was fast and furiously incorporating it into their stuff. Eolas had MS dead to center. What went wrong for them, is that the patent will be shown to be invalid by prior art on a number of other products/projects, which happened to include some stuff out of Unix when it was OSS. IOW, OSS is saving MS's butt.

  • WiX (Score:5, Interesting)

    by alatesystems ( 51331 ) <chris@[ ]isbenard.net ['chr' in gap]> on Monday March 28, 2005 @08:41AM (#12065332) Homepage Journal
    I love how it mentions WiX [sourceforge.net]. WiX has generated enormously good will for microsoft, at least with me.

    I don't ever see them releasing all of windows open source, but just releasing small utilities like that open source for others to toy with is a HUGE step forward. Pretend that microsoft hadn't released WiX, and it stayed as time called it [time.com], insignificant. No one would have bothered with it except MCP's and others, and they would have used WinInstall LE or whatever.

    But because microsoft released it free and OSS, an enormous buzz has been generated and an enormous amount of good will as well.

    • What good will? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Seriously, WiX is Windows-specific. They've just given you one more way to tie yourself to windows.

      They currently have a fully documented MSI Windows Installer file format. This is problematic because it's binary and isn't amenable to change. By moving to XML, they aren't making things less transparent, they're just making things easier for them to upgrade with stylesheets. It's a no-brainer to open source because it was already open.

    • I agree with the poster, Wix did and does generate good will and, IMHO, MSFT will never release all windows source. I don't think that Wix is popular because it is OSS but because the source is available without any legal encumberances. There is a difference. Let me explain.

      The EULA [microsoft.com] for their Data Application Blocks [microsoft.com] is not open source at all, yet this code is very popular. Why? Because you get an easily buildable copy of the source without any restrictions or legal encumberances. Is it OSS? No. There is

    • You've hit the nail on the head: Microsoft shares source as a PR move. They throw out what is really a few miniscule token gestures, but it generates a lot of goodwill, and makes people think they're not so bad after all. They're really just manipulating your view of them.

      MS also takes a bit of flak for keeping their source closed, and also some clients attempt to use OSS as a bargaining chip to drive down the price they get from MS. Also some clients DO value software being OS. Thus Microsoft also wants s

  • Imagining Windows as Open Source (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bigtallmofo ( 695287 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @08:41AM (#12065333)
    What I've imagined are thousands of developers worldwide working for years to cut bloat from the operating system eventually landing on a copy of Windows XP with all the relevant features that installs on a Pentium II with 64 megs of RAM on a 1 gig hard drive with plenty of room to spare.

    Unfortunately there's a lot of effort and little to no profit to be had in reducing bloat; so for-profit companies rarely do it.
    • Microsoft is already cutting the bloat out of the OS. I'm under NDA so I can't say more, but maybe you should look more into Avalon, Blackcomb, etc.
    • There is of course http://msdn.microsoft.com/embedded/default.aspx [microsoft.com] - Windows Embedded
      • Windows Embedded would be perfect for the grandparent because it allows you to cut off the components you don't need, but it can also be exactly the same as XP pro depending on how you build it. Windows Embedded is basically exactly what the grandparent was imagining, here today for a huge price.
    • UM...no!

      It IS profitable to bloat because M$ wants to sell new computers to keep companies like Dell, and Gateway and any other desktop vendor willing to partner with them - who would buy a new computer if the software can run in a 6 year old unit with little to no upgrade?

    • Re:Imagining Windows as Open Source (Score:5, Informative)

      by 1000101 ( 584896 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @08:52AM (#12065391)
      "eventually landing on a copy of Windows XP with all the relevant features that installs on a Pentium II with 64 megs of RAM on a 1 gig hard drive with plenty of room to spare..."


      Why is this so important? The PII was release in 1997 I believe. At the rate that hardware speeds are changing, why is it necessary to be able to install on hardware that is 8+ years old? Fry's had an ad in my local paper this past weekend for a compete system with a 2 GHz Celeron, 128 MB RAM, and a 40 GB hd for $179. At those prices, it doesn't make sense for Microsoft to spend millions of dollars on making XP capable of running on ancient hardware (actually, even the specs I mentioned are somewhat ancient). I have two machines, and one of them has a 700 MHz slot-A AMD Athlon with 256 MB RAM. It is running Windows XP Professional without a hitch. 64 MB of RAM is your biggest problem, but that is cheap these days as well.

      • Re:Imagining Windows as Open Source (Score:5, Interesting)

        by bigtallmofo ( 695287 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @09:07AM (#12065451)
        Catering to a lower common denominator in minimum system specs would make running the operating system far quicker on truly modern systems, but still usable on "obsolete" systems that are only 5-6 years old that would otherwise end up in a landfill.

        I think this is a worthy goal.

      • Re:Imagining Windows as Open Source (Score:5, Informative)

        by leoboiko ( 462141 ) <leoboiko@NOSpaM.gmail.com> on Monday March 28, 2005 @10:17AM (#12065905) Homepage
        Cheap for first-world citizens, maybe. U$179 is more than what my mother earns by month. Public schools around here need computer labs badly, but can barely afford a bunch of Pentium IIs. Windows 9x is still the most used OS. 128 RAM is a lot. Apple? What is Apple?
        • So why should MS spend money to support someone that won't give them any? Use Linux, use older software that works on the older machines. This seems like a wanting your cake and wanting to eat it too situation.
          • Use Linux, use older software that works on the older machines.

            I use GNU/Linux all the way, baby (do you think I even come near to that 9x thing? I haven't installed any proprietary software on my machines for some five years). I disagree with you on the "older software", though. My ratpoison-cvs is very new, as is emacs, XFCE, fluxbox etc. This is what I'm disagreeing it; the OP's opinion that "new software doesn't have to run in older hardware". If it wants to be used by a significant portion of the
            • I have one thing to say to this:
              Do you expect your sedan to be able to haul the same things as a dump truck? Sometimes things are just too big, and you can't cut them down into parts. Or it takes longer to haul. Ratpoison and fluxbox are a pain for many basic users to administrate. Unfortunately, with new features, you just have a bigger load to carry. Period.
      • Where are the 10 GHz CPUs we were supposed to have by now? What about a 5 GHz one? How long has the 3 GHz CPU been state-of-the-art?

      • computers as infrastructure (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        In your brain-dead model of processors and computers they are only on desktops.

        Suppose the Government decides to place monitoring statins along the border with Mexico and they place, say, 10,000 of these at the cost of, say, 10,000 dollars a piece. So that is 100 million dollars.

        and then a few years in to this some flaw is discovered in the code. The solution is to upgrade the operating systems of these nodes.

        In your model they must replace the processors and motherboards.

        Capital equipment and infrast

      • Re:Imagining Windows as Open Source (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @12:51PM (#12067284) Journal
        I put together two Postfix servers at work, one running on a classic Pentium 233mhz and the other on a Pentium II 266mhz. Both are running 2.4.x kernels, both have only 128mb of RAM, and both are handling hundreds of thousands of messages a day. I could probably get away with NT4, but of course, I can't get Postfix to run on them. Windows is hugely bloated and each new version sees this kind of hardware slide off the edge. Linux has given at least five old machines I've worked with new life. A minimal install of something like Slack can be used to make even a classic Pentium a router/firewall.
    • Taking GNOME and KDE as examples of the Open Source community's efforts towards reducing bloat, I doubt that they'd manage the results you'd want. Speedwise, WinXP is actually pretty good.
    • I'd like to use C++ STL containers (I understand them, the knowledge is broadly usable) against managed code to do some custom indexing against MS Word .doc files.
      Various data are kept in an .mdb to support the task. While I'm making steading progress (already prototyped the thing in VBA, it was just too slow and threw some obscure error that may have been memory-related at about the 4-hour point), I must express

      dismay at what an obfuscated object model MS Word presents

      admiration for the VBA enviornment

  • Er? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nine Tenths of The W ( 829559 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @08:42AM (#12065344)
    It also shows that even if it might look that Microsoft doesn't understand the value of open source,

    When you say "value", you mean "potential massive loss of revenue", right? Microsoft are there to make a profit. Expecting them to adopt open source is like expecting Ayn Rand to rise from the grave clutching a copy of Das Kapital.

  • is this site shared source? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by diegocgteleline.es ( 653730 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @08:50AM (#12065382)
    I wonder if the code behind start.com/1 [start.com] is shared source. It has a nice javascript RSS reader I'd like to copy *cought*

  • He made it to an escape pod! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by argent ( 18001 ) <peter&slashdot,2006,taronga,com> on Monday March 28, 2005 @08:57AM (#12065409) Homepage Journal
    Steve is a great guy, and he did some wonderful stuff for Microsoft, and for the rest of us as well. Interix makes all the difference for me... it's like a shoulder-length rubber glove between me and the Win32 subsystem.

    But maybe he doesn't quite appreciate the damage Microsoft has done to their reputation by bundling together true open source programs and traditional restricted source releases to customers under a single banner. It's confusing, and they should at least downplay it... they should separate out the truly Open Source components and make it clear that they do Get It, if only in little bits here and there.

    And if they'd open-source Interix, whooo... it'd be like attaching a Jato unit to their public relations problem...

    • OT: Jato vs JATO (Score:3, Interesting)

      by sczimme ( 603413 )

      it'd be like attaching a Jato unit to their public relations problem...

      I understand what you were trying to say, but there are two small issues to consider:

      JATO is an acronym for Jet Assisted Take Off and should be capitalized. It is used to help heavily loaded aircraft generate enough linear thrust (and thus lift) to take off on runways that would otherwise be too short. There is a neat picture here [blueangels.org] of a C-130 deploying a JATO.

      Attaching an accelerating device to a problem just accelerates the

  • Microsoft is not going to open their windows source. Remember Longhorn? they need to make bussiness with that first.

  • Philanthropy? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Broiler ( 804077 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @09:09AM (#12065459)
    How would M$ make money at this? Before I get blasted the same kind of money they are making today. Open source is great, but aren't most of the posts anti establishment? Why is it bad to make money? If you don't like don't buy it. You can not ask a man who has been making money the same way for years to suddenly stop.
    No this is nothing against Linux, I run Linux for certain applications and I run M$ for other applications. They are just tools. I always use the correct tool for the job.

    • Misanthropy (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Because once making money goes above all other pursuits, it starts to damage the environment, the people, the animals, everyone.

      Making money is not bad (it's a tool like anything else, a way to measure resources) but making it your god which justifies all means, that is bad.

      Corporations have no soul and no social responsibility. If they could make lots of money by selling babies stolen from the birth ward and then beheaded, you can be 100% sure that's what would happen! "If you don't like, don't buy it" d

    • "Why is it bad to make money?"


      Making money is bad when (among others times) it comes at the cost of creating wealth.

      Note: wealth != money.

    • Although it could gain the company a level of trust and support that it greatly needs, Microsoft would lose money by Open Sourcing Windows.

      Microsoft currently locks people into its products via proprietary APIs, file formats, and protocols.

      Microsoft is touting 'integration' as being a major bonus of using its software - something that the competition has been locked out of.

      Microsoft is relying on money generated by upgrades to maintain its cash flow, upgrades of Microsoft Office being one of the main sou
    • I agree with "if you don't like it, don't buy it" whole heartedly..
      However, MS tries to make sure that you HAVE to buy their stuff wether you like it or not, this is mine (and most peoples) biggest problem with ms. If they used open standards and you truly could just not buy their stuff, then i would be a lot happier.

  • MS-speak (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BumpyCarrot ( 775949 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @09:12AM (#12065473)
    By Spring 2001, Microsoft needed to have an active position on the open source phenomena...

    Read that as "Open source is currently in, we need some of that".

    I can't help thinking that someone considers WiX a casualty of war.

  • nice dream . (Score:3, Interesting)

    by amnesiacdotorg ( 738760 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @09:15AM (#12065486)
    all this " feel-good-happy-sunshine day " stuff is fine, we can all envision our own utopias and see our children playing in wheat fields and whatnot, but the reality of the situation is that a marked paradigm shift would need to occur before microsoft truly embraces " open source " .

    open source is not mutually exclusive to programmers and code . open source is the way of the future in terms of the thinking that it fosters: transparent, goal-oriented ( rather than profit-driven ) teamwork . nothing lasts forever, especially not behemoths the size of microsoft . eventually, a better path will be found .
  • Microsoft has to file monthly reports with the SEC, detailing its profits and expenses. If the quarterly profit numbers change even a little bit, even if they are "lower than expected growth," the stock price can decline sharply.

    If Bill Gates alone, or all the executives decided to switch to an open source model one day, I guarantee that even if the switch had yet to take place, the expense of starting such a project would have a large impact on profit, and may cause a stock price slip. Too large of a sl

  • One Step at a Time (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ann Elk ( 668880 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @10:02AM (#12065804)

    Here's what I'd really like to see: Microsoft opening/sharing/whatever the source code to the NT kernel. Just enough to build NTOSKRNL.EXE, NTDLL.DLL, and a couple of HALs (one UP, one MP). This would provide device driver developers with an enormously valuable resource. I suspect this would eventually lead to greater driver stability, as many of the "magic incantations" currently required would start to make more sense.

    Also, releasing the kernel source would not enable sudden flood of Windows-wannnabes. Just as in the Linux world, "kernel source does not a distribution make".

    • > many of the "magic incantations"
      > currently required would start to
      > make more sense.

      I think if you start back-stepping through Windows driver development until you get back to the 3.0 days, it *will* make sense. Backward compatibility is the primary reason for this sort of magic; when you develop a Windows device driver, it has to stand a reasonable chance of working with all properly-designed Windows apps from the last two decades, or people get upset. A lot of arcana got carried forth from th
      • As far as kernel source not making a distribution, Windows is pretty monolithic. Unlike Linux, where most of your system is isolated in small stand-alone utilities, pretty much everything in Windows is woven together such that it would be a nightmare to try and untangle it. Longhorn may start to address this, but it's an architectural condition that can't really be resolved without making some major changes to the O/S

        Actually the NT kernel is far form monolithic. It is still classified as a client/server

  • Shared? (Score:4, Informative)

    by FidelCatsro ( 861135 ) <fidelcatsro AT gmail DOT com> on Monday March 28, 2005 @10:11AM (#12065863) Journal
    share1 Audio pronunciation of "shared" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (shâr)
    n.

    1. A part or portion belonging to, distributed to, contributed by, or owed by a person or group.
    2. An equitable portion: do one's share of the work.
    3. Any of the equal parts into which the capital stock of a corporation or company is divided.

    v. shared, sharing, shares
    v. tr.

    1. To divide and parcel out in shares; apportion.
    2. To participate in, use, enjoy, or experience jointly or in turns.
    3. To relate (a secret or experience, for example) to another or others.
    4. To accord a share in (something) to another or others: shared her chocolate bar with a friend. ................

    Don't microsoft mean Displayed Source initiative, as your not allowed to use all of it , Yes some is under OSI aproved licenses, though some of it effectivly puts your anatomy in a vice if you want to work on certain projects in the future.

  • Not Necessarily Correct (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eno2001 ( 527078 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @10:47AM (#12066099) Homepage Journal
    The Windows tree is not the Linux tree. The Windows tree is akin to an entire mainstream Linux distribution, except with a tightly integrated code base.

    This is a sticking point that people in the Windows camp don't seem to be able to get around.

    1. "Linux" is just the kernel. I think that's what this guy was trying to say when he said that the Windows tree is not the Linux tree.
    2. A mainstream "GNU/Linux distribution" like Mandrake, RedHat, Fedora, Novell or Debian is more akin to Microsoft Windows Professional + Microsoft Office + Microsoft Plus Pack + Window Blinds + Norton Internet Security + Roxio + [insert any brand of CD/DVD ripping software here] + Development tools + IIS + Microsoft SQL + Abobe Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro + Outlook. At least for a start.

    So, if you are going to compare Microsoft Windows to a mainstream GNU/Linux distribution, you quickly see that the GNU/Linux tree is not the Windows tree as there is a whole lot more source code that does into your average distro and a lot of it is very tightly integrated. This is why it is pretty amazing that all the distros are really good about not just updating the basic "OS" code, but all the bundled apps as well. If Microsoft really released a Windows distribution with all the same functionality as a typical GNU/Linux distro, I have a feeling they'd have an even harder time keeping up security wise. It's interesting to note that the supposed independent studies of Linux vs. Windows always harp on how many more security updates that GNU/Linux distros put out than Microsoft does for Windows. They attack that claiming that there are far more security holes in the OS but still equate Windows as offering the same services with fewer patches needed. However, it quickly becomes obvious that since Windows provides such a small amount of functionality when compared to a GNU/Linux distro, they do not offer the same services. It's highly likely that if they did, their patchlist would rival all GNU/Linux distro's patch lists combined. :)

  • windows open (Score:2, Interesting)

    by radu124 ( 871406 )
    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 n
  • Maybe I misunderstood part of this person's argument (I skimmed through the article), but isn't he saying that part of the disadvantage of open sourcing Windows or OFfice would be a lack of stability. I don't buy that argument. Microsoft would still have the trademarks to Windows and Office and would be able to wield tremendous power in requiring certain aspects of the program to be work a certain way ala the idea for open sourcing Java. Any disadvantage in brand stability would be offset I believe by more

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @12:39PM (#12067153)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • I don't think that it would be wise for Microsoft to Open Source its software.

    Microsoft has suggested that opening its code to the world would be catastrophic, that open code means more likelihood of security breaches, and that security through obscurity [wikipedia.org] is the best way to go.

    We see plenty of popular Open Source software, and access to its source code hasn't been catastrophic. It's obvious by now that Open Source itself isn't a security concern.

    Besides, it's funny that Microsoft is putting faith in se
  • Just in case you were wondering why "WiX" is not going to be terribly popular in German speaking countries, imagine an SAP-release of a "jerkov"-module.

    "wi{x|chs}en" in German means "to jerk-off"
  • From the article:

    They can't afford the risk to the brand of instability (or the perception of instability) of the Windows or Office products with their enterprise customers.

    Funny. It was Microsoft's IE's closed-source that led to the hundreds of viruses, worms and whatnot that stained Microsoft's reputation...

    Of course, open sourcing Windows would be simply mad. But what about IE? Or the WORD DOC and Excel formats?

  • What's wrong with this picture?

    For the clueless, let me explain something to you.

    Bill Gates cares about one thing and one thing ONLY: money. And he is FAR too greedy to see any way he can make the same money he is making now from open source. As I've said before, there is NO WAY Bill Gates will ever change his stance on this - EVEN if somebody could show him how to make MORE money from OSS. He's too big an asshole.

    ANY discussion of Microsoft doing open source is so ridiculous as to belong on the funny p
  • NOT open source windows. (for the obvious reasons already mentioned).
    What they SHOULD do is to Open Source some of the userland components of windows. (such as Internet Explorer)

    By then taking the good patches back from the community, they get a better product without giving away the keys to the kingdom or hurting windows sales.

    Although if ReactOS ever gets to a point where it is usable for joe average, Microsoft better watch out... :)

Slashdot Top Deals

"It takes all sorts of in & out-door schooling to get adapted to my kind of fooling" - R. Frost

Close