If Microsoft Went Open Source 347
From an Anonymous Reader: "The BBC's Bill Thompson has written a speculative article about the possibility of Microsoft attempting to secure their place in the future of operating systems by creating an open operating system. From the article: 'They allocate a billion dollars worth of programmers to shine and polish [The new OS] for a year, improving its compatibility with Windows Server technologies, donating parts of the Windows and Office code bases under the GPL and turning it into the world's best operating system.' Could this ever happen?
Wrong emphasis (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know how many of you have contributed to an OSS project, but, at least for those projects that are well-established the process can be a lot of work and not a little bit intimidating. Some progress has been made on the tool front to make it easier but it still takes way too much effort to get a patch mainstreamed on the really big projects.
What Microsoft should do is open up their software, and invest their money in more programmers, but not to do coding, to act as support for the rest of us who do the coding.
Make it so that if I find a bug, all I have to do is fix it and submit a patch. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing less.
This is the one opportunity they have that I don't see Linux/*BSD ever possessing. The kind of work necessary to support large projects is the very last thing most of us want to do. Sourceforge is littered with the remains of OSS projects that were fun to code and get working, but that nobody wants to maintain anymore.
They'd still make gobs of money. Ever browse their help wanted section? Sometimes it seems as if half the listings there are for build engineers. Guys whose only job it is to build Windows and all the other projects. Casual/notive users are never going to attempt this on their own (Gentoo/LFS users notwithstanding), and you'd be crazy to accept builds from third-parties given the complexity we're talking about and the potential for malware.
It's the best thing Microsoft could do right now. Which is why they won't do it. It's like what they say about generals always fighting the last war. Gates and Ballmer got where they are by hewing to a specific ideology. They're not changing their minds in this lifetime or the next, even if its clear that that ideology is antiquated and obsolete.
--
Why didn't you know? [tinyurl.com]
Re:Wrong emphasis (Score:4, Funny)
I think IBM has that bussiness sewn up already.
Re:Wrong emphasis (Score:5, Interesting)
This was true once, but I don't think it holds much water anymore. There's much more esteem these days given to the guys who do the hard work of maintaining a project that actually works... There is a point where people want to maintain a project that is important and makes a different in people's lives, a point beyond the fun-hack level, and you rarely see entry level developers there.
Anybody can start up an open source project, but most of them never get to the point where the project is usable and well-made. The only exceptional new project I've seen lately is Ruby on Rails, and it's functional and well-documented to the point where it can't probably can't fail at the point where the initial developers lose steam.
Re:Wrong emphasis (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wrong emphasis (Score:3, Insightful)
I absolutely LOVE the idea behind sourceforge, I wish I had the time and skills to help with projects there... but the one thing I wish they had was a better frontend to the projects... even putting projects without current releases or witho
Re:Wrong emphasis (Score:4, Funny)
Ah, so you support the "free as in slave labor" open-source model?
Re:Wrong emphasis (Score:3, Insightful)
Slaves don't volenteer to work free. They don't get up in the morning and think, I'll go do some free work for the next door neibor. Slaves are property and are forced to do this. There really is no choice in the matter. This is no were close to being slave labor.
At worst it would be a volenteer situation and how is that actually bad? The number of programers microsoft employs would only increase if they "invest their money in more
Re:Wrong emphasis (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't know how frightening that is. Your bug is my feature. Your "fix" breaks me. Or your bug is an invitable side effect of some other necessary but non-obvious code. You can't just submit "fixes" with "nothing more, nothing less" in Linux. How in the fsck do you think you would ever be able to do this in Windows?
Mod me flame-bait if you like. I'm not ignorant enough to get modded "interesting".
Re:Wrong emphasis (Score:5, Insightful)
Because exactly as you've pointed out -- it's not the small maintenance and enhancement programming that makes a project good. It's the higher-level decisions by the project managers that can determine whether code changes will be successful.
Re:Wrong emphasis (Score:3, Insightful)
So you said alot, fine... then you make this massive claim at the end even though you have absolutely no support for it. Where's the clear evidence that this i
Re:Wrong emphasis (Score:2, Interesting)
Here. [businessweek.com]
Do they keep making money the way things are going? Sure they do. But there won't be any growth, worse, Linux/*BSD continue to act like ducks pecking them to death.
So if they're lucky, their stock price stays where it is.
For Gates, everything is about growth. Making money hand over fist isn't enough. He's done that already.
Re:Wrong emphasis (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wrong emphasis (Score:3, Insightful)
I know that sound wierd or different then what it should mean but if microsoft intends to keep ~90% of all desktops, it needs to create a "need" past a desire or default for thier products. Thier growth would be in servers and services as well a specific tecnoligy that they alone could control.
This is one of the reasons people are so scared about DRM and trusted computing. It isn't so much that it might lock out other ope
Dead projects on Sourceforge (Score:5, Insightful)
What you've said about the administration problems for large projects is true, but I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that there are lots of unfinished projects lying around places like Sourceforge.
A few months ago, I was looking for a library that would do something, but it just didn't exist. What I did find, though, was someone's Sourceforge effort from five years ago. It wasn't packaged very well, and it only covered about 70% of what I'd ideally want. I was able to contact the original author, and while he's still interested in it, he really doesn't have the time (or to some extent the expertise) to finish it.
Since then, I've decided to try to pick up where the previous developer left off. I've re-packaged the code, and now I'm thinking about extending it to cover what I wanted to do previously. I don't know how successful I'll be in finishing it off, and to be honest I think it's unlikely. But the fact that someone else made their own effort available, and occupying sourceforge, made it much easier for me to get my own effort underway.
Re:Dead projects on Sourceforge (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, the scenario is kind of stupid. (Score:3, Insightful)
Flawed logic (Score:5, Interesting)
But that one year lag works the other way too. Microsoft would then be a year behind the open source baseline with which they started.
If they kept merging mainline changes into their internal codeset during that year of secret development, it would no longer have a year's worth of changes in it, it would only have enhancements, which would be a lot easier to pick and choose from for the rest of the world to merge back into the mainline.
If Microsoft kept their baseline "pure", they would be behind the world as much as the world would be behind them. If they kept their internal codeset up to date, they would not be a year ahead.
Wham! Paradox City Arizona, baby.
Re:Flawed logic (Score:3, Insightful)
Forked projects occasionally, though not always, end up viable alternatives.
Look at X.org, look at the three different BSDs (De Raadt's recoding of things for security) and so forth.
If Microsoft took the traditional route of forking a fairly recent version of the stable codebase, they'd have a decent chance of being able to actually sell something.
Forking (Score:2)
If Microsoft took the traditional route of forking a fairly recent version of the stable codebase, they'd have a decent chance of being able to actually sell something.
Like MacOS X?
This isn't a fork off the beaten path into the wilderness, presumably, this would be a fork into Windows compatibility. The target market wouldn't be Linux users, so their baseline and opinions wouldn't count for much. The main target would be current
Re:Forking (Score:4, Interesting)
They haven't earned much in the way of trust.
Summary. (Score:5, Funny)
Doubtful. Ask again later.
Re:Summary. (Score:5, Interesting)
but hey, it'd be nice if Microsoft did it too. I like UNIX ;-)
Re:Summary. (Score:4, Interesting)
In no sense of the word did they 'take an open source product' and kinda create their own fork. Unless you can tell me where to download NeXT's Source Code. I wouldn't mind having NextStep/OpenStep to run on some of the various hardware (PA-RISC, Sparc, Intel, etc.) hardware I have around here. . . It's not freely available by any means except the warez route. Certainly the source code is not available.
Re:Summary. (Score:4, Informative)
Yes they did. Back when they were called NeXT, they took 4.2BSD and Mach 2.0 (later Mach 2.5), forked it and put a proprietary UI on top of it.
When they became Apple, they replaced a lot of the 4.2BSD stuff with FreeBSD code (and some from NetBSD back in the Rhapsody era).
Of course, this process happened back in 1988, so it's only news by Slashdot's standards, but it did happen.
Re:Summary. (Score:2)
Outlook hazy.
If Microsoft went open source.. (Score:5, Funny)
never happening..
Re:If Microsoft went open source.. (Score:5, Funny)
I would get laid..
never happening..
Nothing ventured nothing gained...
Re:If Microsoft went open source.. (Score:2)
But I suppose that's only the case with very few of us.
Re:If Microsoft went open source.. (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, by Bill Gates.
"Could this ever happen?" (Score:3, Funny)
Ooooh! (Score:5, Funny)
While we are wishing, I want a money tree in the back yard that sheds $100 bills.
And world peace.
And a pony!
Re:Ooooh! (Score:5, Funny)
If I were posting a fantasy about being a rich guy with a pony and no law enforcement, I'd post it anonymously.
Lucky you (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Ooooh! (Score:3, Funny)
Or we talking about some big-ass money tree that it can't reach?
Enquiring minds want to know.
Not a chance (Score:5, Insightful)
Control of suppliers, control of customers, control of employees, control of what competitors are left.
To go OSS would be a complete 180 in personality, and that is just not going to happen.
Re:Not a chance (Score:3, Insightful)
It's based on money. Control ensures money - that's the bottom line. Literally.
Re:Not a chance (Score:5, Funny)
No. Never small enough!
Re:Not a chance (Score:3, Insightful)
That's an interesting question, really. There's no doubt that MS made a policy of hiring the very best, and we can reasonably assume that they have some quality coding going on in house.
And yet there is considerable perceived suckage in the Microsoft codebase. Ans so a lot of people ask "if so many people dislike this product, why does it
Could this ever happen? (Score:5, Insightful)
In a word, no (Score:5, Insightful)
There is nothing in the history of him or his company to suggest that this is possible.
And, frankly, it's not necessary.
Re:In a word, no (Score:2)
Short answer? (Score:4, Funny)
Long answer?
No f'n way.
There, settled.
It's pretty simple (Score:2, Informative)
Proprietary software is about not cooperating, and many big businesses seem to be about destroying anything which gets in the way of their profit or control.
Microsoft can't "go open source" until it collectively believes that cooperation is a good idea and stops trying to destroy or control everything. And I'm guessing that won't happen any time soon.
Re:It's pretty simple (Score:2)
I'm sure that if you cooperated with MS, (ie:paid them $hitloads), they in turn would cooperate with you.
shya (Score:5, Funny)
Next (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Next question.
Re:Next (Score:2)
Yes. Next question.
Re:Next (Score:2)
Yes. Next question.
Speculative article != news article (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Speculative article != news article (Score:2)
In truth, not a whole lot of the articles posted on slashdot really matter. Why I keep coming here is a mystery, maybe I should form a slash-anon.
Re:Speculative article != news article (Score:2)
Re:Speculative article != news article (Score:5, Interesting)
Recently I was paid $10 to take a survey geared towards IT professionals about "current trends within the Software and PC Industry". The questions were clearly written by Microsoft, and one possible plan was obvious:
-Microsoft will compose a list of dozens of software patents allegedly violated by Linux and will offer total indemnification for Red Hat users only. If necessary, it will use its own patent portfolio as leverage.
-Microsoft will strengthen Red Hat's source offerings to emphasize "interoperability", which means that it will be possible to administer a RH install from Windows.
-Microsoft will buy Red Hat for considerably more than it seems to be worth and will immediately cripple it just as it's crippled every other worthy competitor it has bought out.
This is a clever plan to defeat Linux.
(Part of the survey really bugged me because it seemed like a push poll - see here [mit.edu].)
Re:This fits (Score:2)
1. RH is the unquestionable leader in OSS to Microsoft's most profitable customers. For Microsoft, it's the devil they know. For red hat they will be "spared" the legal onslaught in exchange for being a good, and not too competitive partner.
2. HP did exactly this in the 90's to all of the scanner companies when they were ready to rule flatbed scanners. Killed the weak ones in -months-. Gone. Goodbye. Phones unplugged.
2a. Think about all the distros they can destroy in less
Re:This fits (Score:3, Interesting)
As for the USA, you need to deal away with software patents.
Re:Speculative article != news article (Score:2)
Putty, yo.
It sounds like just the sort of thing that Microsoft would do, though. They could make a nice GUI application to administer multiple machines at once with the click of a mouse, maybe have it manage a mix of Windows and linux. That might be cool. Dirty, but cool.
Red Cap! (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would the people who worked at Red Hat still work there after Microsoft buys them?
Why wouldn't that take their huge checks and start a new company, with all the GPL'd code and industry love they've earned and call it something like "Red Cap" and pick up right were they left off.
Except they're all much richer than before.
Microsoft can hire individuals away from Linux-based companies
And I wouldn't trust Microsoft's lawyers not to have all kinds of provisions in a developer's contract with Microsoft.
I'm sure Bill would happily pay Linus a million or two if he could legally prevent Linus from writing any more code.
Re:Speculative article != news article (Score:2)
Just on a technical level, it would be much easier for MS to put a Linux/Unix-compatibility layer on top of Windows (and they already have to a certain extent), rather than attempt to run all of the Windows infrastructure on top
Re:Speculative article != news article (Score:2)
If they stripped out all the cruft kept for compatibility with ancient software; and changed the policy of entangling non-essential components deep in the system, that could make a solid OS. Something like OSX. Jobs has never been afraid of pulling the rug out as far as b
Re:Speculative article != news article (Score:2, Interesting)
You must not come here often!
There are plenty of tech sites out there if you just want news, and most deliver fresher right-off-the-presses news. But here you get news, editorials, book reviews, interviews, and tons of sometimes funny, sometimes insightful member commentary.
so why settle for vanilla, when you can get it and more in the neopolitan that is
Probably on a very cold day in hell (Score:3, Informative)
Great theory, difficult implementation (Score:4, Interesting)
Releasing anything resembling the source code to windows would be laden with problems for Microsoft. Opening their customers to a whole range of security holes created by decades of patch-fixes and arcane support layers for retired API's would possibly leave them with a public relations disaster on their hands, not to mention the financial repercussions.
However, it is interesting to imagine a truly level playing field between Windows & Unix based operating systems, in freedom and price terms. Would end users choose unix based systems over windows based systems given the full freedom of choice and knowledge that applications could run on either? Also the possibilities for code and standards interaction between two entirely open systems and the continued improvement of both in competetive and meaningful ways is something that could potentially be extremely beneficial to the computing ecosystem at large
Re:Great theory, difficult implementation (Score:4, Interesting)
Writing commercial grade applications that use a single code base for both *nix and Windows is not that difficult, simply avoid platform specific API's such as MFC. If you cannot avoid them then seperate that part of the code from the rest of the application and you will still end up with ~80% common code.
The expensive (and boring) part is comprehensive testing of the application on multiple versions of multiple platforms.
Re:Great theory, difficult implementation (Score:2)
It is hard to say if Linux would be modified as well, probably to pick up gui and services stuff from Windows. If this starts to happen the result is likely to be a merge.
Best is subjective. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Best is subjective. (Score:2)
"MS has 90%+ of the market. Why should they try to do anyting other than what they're doing, which is obviously working? They seem pretty content!"
I bet that's exactly what the T-Rex thought when some stupid little proto-mammal scuttled across his toe. 8^)
Re:Best is subjective. (Score:2)
MS don't need to go open source (Score:2)
Get MS to play by the rules set out by the other people and we'll have a better industry for all. Maybe it won't be perfect and it sure won't solve every problem, but everyones problems will be more inline rather than the "L
The prupose of a company (Score:2, Insightful)
So putting on such a big project such as Windows on Open Source would seem ridiculous both for Bill Gate, its executives and all the shareholders out there. It is Microsoft's job to please these shareholders: to wipe the competition apart and to build more and more profit.
Here's another topic that we should "openly" discuss: profits. Where is Microsoft going to get profits? Oh sure, the comp
Embrace, Extend, Exterminate (Score:2, Funny)
Embrace: "Microsoft will now provide a free Open Source Operating System. We are doing this to ensure that even citizens of the poorest of nations can freely access information via the Internet. We will work closely with existing Open Source Software developers to ensure their ability to produce cross-platform software to meet that end."
Extend: "As Microsoft's Open Source Operating System has grown in popularity, it appears that cross-platform software packa
Why bother? (Score:3, Insightful)
However, Microsoft will not release Windows as Open Source. They cannot, because there is too much stolen code in it. **cough**BSD**cough**
IF Microsoft had released Office for every OS out there, rather than trying to own the entire PC from device drivers to applications to keyboards and mice, they would indeed own the office, likely for the rest of time. But they didn't. They got greedy, they wanted it all, and focused so much effort and time trying to LOCK IN users and LOCK OUT any alternatives that they lost sight of the one thing that they used to do well: Write applications.
They tried. 64-bit Win95 for the Alpha did indeed get sold, but then they abandoned it. This left customers hanging and looking for an alternative, and they were pissed enough at MS to not go back. This is not smart, and it demonstrates the lack of forethought that has created the environment for disaster that Windows Vista forshadows.
Who will upgrade their hardware to relative supercomputers just to pay for an upgrade to software they already have and that already works? The vision of those hardy souls who have never upgraded from Win98 because, face it, Win98 and Office97 are still perfectly good for 99.99% of what everyone does.
So when Office97 documents start failing because Microsoft changed their formats again, don't expect companies to spend $2000/seat to just do what they could do yesterday. OpenOffice is already here.
And when IE7 won't install on anything older than WinXP, don't expect that same $2000/seat upgrade to be spent to, again, just do today what worked fine yesterday. Firefox, Opera, Mozilla &etc are already here.
The F/OSS community already has a head start in making functional apps to do what needs doing regardless of OS, on existing hardware, using commodity protocols. Microsoft can never catch up trying to do that, because they have never been successful at doing that. They CHOSE not to be compatible, not to be frugal, not to play nice with others.
Microsoft as a company believes this is some kind of "race" that they have to "win", but while Microsoft spends bails of money "mobilizing their sales and marketing departments", F/OSS developers will continue to write good code.
Bob-
Re:Why bother? (Score:4, Insightful)
Given that the infamous "running strings on ftp.exe" results in the Berkeley Regents copyright notice, I daresay that this code is NOT stolen, and is being used according to license.
No, the real reason this will never happen is that there isn't anything in it for MS--interoperability weakens their monopoly, and Open Source doesn't offer anything compelling enough (to them) to make that kind of move. However, I think we will see more and more dev and system administration tools end up under some form of F/OSS license. They already have a few projects in the wild (two of them are actually hosted on sourceforge!)
That actually has a real benefit to microsoft--particularly if Balmer was serious when he did his monkey dance and shouted "Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers!" The CPL seems to be what they're currently looking at for that sort of thing, let's see how they progress.
oh no! (Score:2)
God I hope not!!
Could this ever happen? YES! And here's why: (Score:2)
Hey, at least I got to be original
Like Apple they would go BSD not GPL (Score:2)
Like Apple they would go BSD not GPL.
Oddly.. (Score:2)
Such rumours of an x86 MacOS were on, off, discounted and resurfacing for years
and last month it came true.
Microsoft HAS been embracing Linux, Open Source (see hiring Gentoo founder Daniel
Robbins et al.) and seriously.. "opening" office document schemas may be the first
step..
MS may be able to bridge that gap that no fully open operating system can; by
open sourcing enough parts to allow interoperability and acceptability yet
being able to - with it'
No, here's why (Score:3, Interesting)
Portability. If MS were to move Office to X under MS-Redhat (or whatever), that would mean it should be possible to get Office running under Gentoo (which isn't the kind of lock-in MS would like). So they'd have to do something like make a special toolkit (which they would probably do anyways). But that toolkit would have to use X, so it could still be put on Gentoo. So they'd have to change X. That means either writing their own X server or adding patches to the existing one. If the patch it, they have to release it so that won't work unless you need their special kernel stuff. But they'd have to release that too (it couldn't be a module, so it'd have to be GPL). In the end, anyone with Gentoo (or whatever) and some time should be able to run the program that would run only on MS-Redhat.
The only way to fix it is patching the kernel or X, and then they'd have to release code. The other option is to write their own kernel/X from scratch... but that's what Longhorn is supposed to be (a complete rewrite). So... why bother?
Given the way MS operates, it doesn't make sense. Now to provide a better Unix on Windows environment (like better POSIX compliance, a version of BASH, etc) in the form of a good Services for Unix so that applications that are cross-platform can be run easily on Windows, that could help them (making it easy to run Unix/Linux/BSD programs on Windows opening up tons of applications and such). Out of the two, that would be FAR more likely.
But I doubt that would happen, because to allow people to easily port Unix stuff would mean allowing people to write Unix stuff and trade in their Windows servers down the line for Linux. To make it easier to keep running the platform that way would make it easier to switch off it. So it won't happen, it will stay crippled.
As likely as the following (Score:2)
*Burns and Smithers laugh and see Homer's pig fly by*
Smithers: So, are you going to donate right now sir
Mr. Burns: Hmm I prefer not to.
Hypothetical (Score:2)
Paging Dr. Henry Heimlich.... (Score:2)
Did someone dump a little flea spray and kool-aid in this guy's meth?
This guy needs to stop by eBay and buy a clue.
The only things you'll ever see WHG III giving away are through his foundation - innoculations for the third world, etc. That section of Redmond may have hired OS people, but that doesn't mean they'll ever understand OS. Think of OS as being infrasound or ultrasound. It's o
Getting a clue (Score:3, Interesting)
If Elephants Had Wings (Score:2)
But then media types are always publishing their fantasies of how capi
No this could not happen (Score:2)
Microsoft has never had the management quality... (Score:2)
In my opinion, Microsoft has never had the management quality necessary to do what the Slashdot story proposes.
Free OS users are cheap (Score:2)
This bit made me laugh. If there's one thing that's true about OS's, it's this: the less you paid for the OS, the less you are likely to be willing to pay for applications. After all (the user thinks) if the a whole OS only costs $X, why should one measly application be worth more than that?
Re:Free OS users are cheap (Score:2)
I don't use Linux because it's cheap.
I use Linux because it works. I've spent tens of thousands of dollars on software in the last decade, and I'm not about to stop now.
In the good old days, computers came with the OS built in. People still paid for applications. Most Windows users don't pay directly for Windows either - they get it with their computer.
smash.
Too big of a project (Score:4, Insightful)
Using what code? (Score:2)
If frogs had wings, (Score:2)
This will never happen ... (Score:4, Informative)
Otoh. It would be interesting to know exactly what Daniel Robbins, and similar collegues, are doing. My own guess is that he's probably creating a superior and enhanced version of his Portage build system for Vista. And otherwise probably very little, apart from being kept safely out of circulation so that the Free World cannot make use of his talents.
World's best operating system? (Score:4, Funny)
Microsoft spends millions on a UI lab every year and the biggest innovation they can come up with is hiding Clippy.
Post isn't very clear (Score:2)
They don't care. (Score:2)
No, because they don't give a damn about making the world's best operating system. Because they made a monopoly out of the world's worst operating system, so really, why bother?
This reminds me of... (Score:4, Funny)
GPL? Nope, here comes the MPL... (Score:2)
It would work like this:
1) would-be open source developers would have to pay a subscription fee to gain access to the "open code"
2) and also sign NDA's prohibiting them from ever using or revealing any aspect of the code they had witnessed, in any other project for all eternity
3) and agree to sign over any changees they submit to the protective care of the MPL QA Council (an affiliated steering committee composed of selected Microsoft employees)
4) and sign ove
Why Bill Thompson is a commentator... (Score:2)
They allocate a billion dollars worth of programmers to shine and polish it for a year...
Uh huh...
A team of Microsoft's best coders working on a project they all believed in could, I am sure, do great stuff.
Bill, I'd like to introduce you to Fred Brooks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Mont h [wikipedia.org]
Brook's Law: "Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later."
I would suggest that if there were to be such a crash program, they would be far better served by picking
Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
They would be able to keep their own code closed, since they wouldn't have to alter the Linux kernel, and they would be able to update the OS with Linux kernel upgrades as they happen. Whenever they make a fix to the kernel, it goes back to the community, yes. But they do it because it benefits them to make the fix. The fact that everyone else benefits from their fix should be a good thing for them. When they make a patch that improves security or stability for everyone, well, you just can't buy that kind of good PR.
It might work better in a legal sense if they did this with FreeBSD, just as Apple did. And that's how they can beat Apple. Do the same thing, with the same kernel baseline, but rely on their massive resources and programming ability to outpace them on the UI and applications front, meanwhile benefiting from every addition Apple contributes to BSD.
Then Windows is UNIX, and there would be no reason not to use it. They would win the desktop, the server, the handheld
Damn it.
A GPL Windows? Never happen. (Score:3, Interesting)
First, MS should buy Transgaming. They own Cedega, which is a closed fork of the Wine tree. No need to support the WINE project with actual patches, since there's no licensing requirements.
Second, knock together, say, a FreeBSD or Linux distribution. X11, standard userland, everything.
Third, use their internal OS programmers to turn Cedega into the greatest thing since sliced bread. A -perfect- implementation of the Win32 API on top of Linux.
Fourth, get all the hardware manufacturers on board for drivers. Institute a driver program. Ta-da, everyone has drivers, but only on platforms MS wants to support. IE, x86. OSS driver development continues, but at a slower pace with fewer people actively testing.
Fifth, make the install as painless as a standard Windows install. No text-mode, no kernel boot stuff, just the splash we all know and love(/hate)
Fifth, sell for the price of a Windows license, or a little less. Allow the base OS to be downloaded freely, ala Darwin, but keep the WINE/Win32 API closed and sealed off.
Since their Win32 API is perfect, Visual Studio should run flawlessly. AND, with the proper window manager on X11 (as they will likely do this), it would be visually indistinguishable from standard Windows. Power-users could install Gnome/KDE/fluxbox/windowmaker/whatever, and the Win32 API would still be perfectly available, exportable over the network as any X11 app, etc.
Leverage the community to build the kernel and userland. Use their own people to maintain just the API - keep the total lock-in.
Re:Joke? (Score:2)
Re:Obligatory (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How about opening older WINDOWS? (Score:2)
The reason they are not opening up Windows 1, 2, 3, 3.1, 3.11, 95/98/ME, is because they probably contain some proprietary code that is still used even today in the current versions of the operating system.
Please, think before you post.