Mind blown: An Open Source Windows Is ‘Definitely Possible’

aidancheddar

aidancheddar

Active Member
Microsoft’s software empire rests on Windows, the computer operating system that runs so many of the world’s desktop PCs, laptops, phones, and servers. Along with the Office franchise, it generates the majority of the company’s revenues. But one day, the company could “open source” the code that underpins the OS—giving it away for free. So says Mark Russinovich, one of the company’s top engineers.

“It’s definitely possible,” Russinovich says. “It’s a new Microsoft.”

Russinovich is sitting in front of several hundred people who spend their days running thousands of computers. He helped build Windows, and he carries one of the most respected titles at the world’s largest software company: Microsoft Technical Fellow. But here, on stage at a conference in Silicon Valley, he’s perched in front of an audience whose relationship with Microsoft is, at best, complicated.
Click to expand...
I shit you not.
 
  • Better security by identifying security flaws that Microsoft would otherwise overlooked
  • More bugs squashed since the community can directly file bug reports to the developers (like this project)
  • Community (or third party) support is also pretty much given highest priority by default, since anyone can build and test
  • License fees are pretty much null and void
  • If any of Microsoft's products is discontinued, anyone can pick it up. Best example of this: Firefox is the successor to Netscape because the code was open sourced.
 
Last edited:
So basically MS would have lots of devs fixing them stuff and they wouldn't even have to pay for it? :p

That's cool.
It doesn't exactly mean the license costs would be none. Support could be paid, same for services and other stuff.
 
pisarz1958 said:
It doesn't exactly mean the license costs would be none. Support could be paid, same for services and other stuff.
Click to expand...
The thing about open source license is your granted freedom without costs to modify, copy, and redistribute without asking for permission from the author. So, license costs would have to be none.
 
Let's just assasinate Lennart Poettering because we don't like systemd, like most Linux users are planning to. It infringes our freedoms, I mean, guy does a great job but I'm still living in the 80s.
 
Linux ironically needs the kind of malicious approach that was taken with systemd...
Else we just end up with AUDIO NO PLEASE DON- *ded from complexity*
 
aidancheddar said:
Wait, what? o_o
Click to expand...
Logic of Linux community, pretty much. :D

Yeah, I like the OS, the initiative, the ideology etc. but the community sometimes just gets on my nerves so much I want to throw my router out the window. All that "I don't like this approach, let me fork this instead of improving your code because I don't like you as well and I think that you stink" (do you want to count all the Linux distros?), "I don't give a shit, pretend it's not there and it will be alright" (trying to solve an issue with LXDE), "- I have a bunch of awesome concepts regarding future UI improvements in [project name], current one is really terrible from UX point. - F**k off, I hate changes and I think you stink". Oh, and these people are actually complaining that their free software is not TAKING OVER THE WORLD OMG - well, with that attitude, don't expect to go anywhere Linux guys, please.

If only they could get their shit together, resolve all that dumb conflicts, put their ego aside etc. - open-source community has a really big potential. But then, how can you do that without a proper leadership?
 
Sad but true. However, this is why I support Ubuntu, Unity and Gnome Shell projects more then other geek distros or desktops. All of these have caused used uproar in the Linux communities just because they're finally maturing, finding their identity, willing put their foot down and properly compete.

Honestly, though, if anyone's to blame for the way the community reacts is because of Richard Stallman. He's sooo vapor locked in his ideals of free software that he's ironically become his own dictator especially GPL being the de-fecto standard (not that I'm complaining). Just look at gNewSense. It's comprised of nothing else BUT free software without an inch of proprietary software or drivers. Which means the chances of it running on my computer is not possible. That's the role model. But how is that free in a sense of freedom!? That's the complete opposite. Just because license for said software is free in both beer and freedom doesn't mean I shouldn't be locked out from playing shit from Steam! Ugh.
 
^
sAwqdwb.png


Richard Stallman is one of the freaks, really. And I'd actually say that what he preaches makes sense. Because if you get a piece of closed sourced software, you're probably never going to know exactly what's in it, right? Not that anyone bothers to read the sources for the "free software", even the companies which are using it. One word. HEAARTBLEEED!!!11 Same with hardware. You can't have full control over something if you can't see how it all works under the hood. Yeah, it's a tin-foil-hat-weirdo level of paranoia, but to be honest - it still kinda makes sense, the same way this one does - "we should stop eating meat because animals are suffering". And we all know it's something which won't work on a global scale for various reasons, like not enough food sources, all that food chain crap etc. Actually, there are people who think we should start eating bugs because they're not that bad and there might not be enough food (vegetables + meat) for all of us on Earth, so I can't imagine everyone just switching over to eating vege-stuff only. Same with free software. It's a glorious idea, but there are some cases, in which it wouldn't work.
 
Huh? The Heartbleed bug was discovered before it became an even bigger threat then it was already was. There was some attacks five months before bug was discovered. Speaking of security, this is why an open source Windows makes perfect sense. I mean, it has more security holes then Swiss cheese or we wouldn't have anti-viruses exclusively for Windows. Developers would be all over the code just like they are with .NET.
 
aidancheddar said:
Huh? The Heartbleed bug was discovered before it became an even bigger threat then it was already was. There was some attacks five months before bug was discovered. Speaking of security, this is why an open source Windows makes perfect sense. I mean, it has more security holes then Swiss cheese or we wouldn't have anti-viruses exclusively for Windows. Developers would be all over the code just like they are with .NET.
Click to expand...
See, but Linux, Mac, Android and all the other platforms also have loooads of security holes, the difference is that Windows is still a mainstream OS on desktops, which is exactly why it's the most targetted platform. Also, you need to take under consideration that lots of the holes are actually in 3rd party software, like Java and Flash.
 
pisarz1958 said:
See, but Linux, Mac, Android and all the other platforms also have loooads of security holes, the difference is that Windows is still a mainstream OS on desktops,
Click to expand...
I never said they didn't. In fact, Android is as mainstream as Windows in the mobile world, and Java is open source. What I said was open source would mean those holes get fixed quicker, and they do. That's what makes it secure.
 
And both Android and Java are swarming in security holes, some of which Google doesn't even give a crap about fixing, because "you could just buy a new phone"... (for example, that WebView security hole)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top