Microsoft Engineer: Open Source Windows Is 'Definitely Possible' 303
An anonymous reader writes: Speaking at ChefCon, Microsoft Technical Fellow Mark Russinovich talked briefly about the prospect of some or all of Windows going open source. He said, "It's definitely possible. It's a new Microsoft." Russinovich acknowledged the reality that most developers and IT workers have embraced open source software to run some or all of their machines, and that means Microsoft needs to adapt. He also noted that Microsoft is beginning to adopt a strategy familiar to open source vendors: give away the software, and then sell support and related products. "It lifts them up and makes them available for our other offerings, where otherwise they might not be. If they're using Linux technologies that we can't play with, they can't be a customer of ours."
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It was inevitible (Score:5, Interesting)
embrace extend extinguish
Yeah, that worked at one time. But as Microsoft has become just another player, playing nice full time might just be a better way.
The days of people buying new computers every two years are over, except for a few. The whole operating system paradigm has shifted so much that trying to rely on people constantly upgrading it just doesn't work any more. Especially since the Microsoft world has been bred towards cheapness. There are a lot of computers out there running XP yet, on functioning computers, and doing work. That's insane, but that's the crop you get when people are inculcated to avoid Apple because you might have to pay a little more. The best example I ever saw was in a local netnews for sale group when a full blown physical threat bitchwar broke out over a 5 cent difference in price.
Then there is the matter of Pressure to give something new to people when you charge them for OS upgrades. I suspect that the ribbon and especially metro would never have seen the light of day if Microsoft didn't feel the need to justify somechangeanychange worldview. Which is a dangerous thing once you get a lot of people using your system.
Apple, for all of the changes it has incorporated over the years, if you set a person down who was using an old Toaster Mac from the 90's at a computer running Yosemite, they would be able to get around and do their work. You cannot say the same for Windows 3.1 or 95 to W8. Considering that Apple had switched processors and even the underlying system base it's even a better example. And if for some reason, they really wanted the spawn of hell metro interface, Launchpad is there, just a click away, no OS modifications or third party software needed.
But I digress. Going from their let's make money on the OS to a more sustainable business model is a good thing. I like it. I think it will help them in the long run, where they can get people to buy software to do stuff with, stuff that if you want to do it, you go to Microsoft to get it.
Re:It's that damn cancer! (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe, but what's wrong with that? Consider the hypothetical: What if Microsoft released Windows to the GPL, and other programmers took everything of use and moved it to Linux, and the result was better than Windows?
Microsoft could then just use Linux, with great compatibility with their other products and services. Nothing is lost.
Re:Why not? (Score:4, Interesting)
Which won't by them anything.. They throw out their singular primary advantage (backwards compatibily for decades of application) for.... well actually not much of anything. The Linux kernel can do tricks that Windows kernel cannot, but in the scheme of things not something that will boost MS revenue. The BSD kernels are already roughly at the same functional level, so no new function from that area.
It made sense for Apple because they had only their classic OS which was clearly ill-equipped in fundamental ways and it let them skip the investment of doing it from scratch. MS had already spent that money, so they don't get to skip anything.
If MS started doing a linux distro, it probably would do more harm than good. Distrusted by the target market with a value add that would probably amount to making it easier to manage linux *like* windows, but at that point why not just run Windows? I'd personally be more swayed by the ability to muck about with Windows in the same style as linux, but I recognize that would be a bad idea for Windows.
Re:Why not? (Score:4, Interesting)
No company permits 'arbitrary' software. Many companies do trust the employees to understand licensing and 'play with' free software. They generally have an education course on how to find licensing terms and to read the license more deeply for signs of 'commercial use clauses' and what GPL means versus BSD and so on and so forth.
IBM doesn't bat an eye when if an employee puts Fedora on a company asset. They have your ass if you put any open source code into any product without legal review, and also if you use a partner's source code and contribute anything open source based on that. So yes, a long standing large company that is very very very careful about software licensing will go along with it.
Not all 'playing with' is for personal gain. Some of it enables advancing your companies agenda/saving costs/etc. I would not use my personal resources for exploring things that would advance my company without much gratification for me on a personal level.
Re:It's that damn cancer! (Score:2, Interesting)
Really? explain the paradox of choice, then.
Also, explain the continued existence of the Middle East, most of Africa, and most of the western world's slow creep back towards invasive, paternalistic styles of government?
Yep, people just love their freedom. They love it so much they can't wait to give it away to the first person who promises them something. Don't even have to deliver... just promise.