
Microsoft urged: Open-source Windows 7 to 'undo past wrongs' - gitgud
https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-urged-open-source-windows-7-to-undo-past-wrongs/
======
luma
Win7 won't be open sourced for the same reason that makes nearly any large
closed-source software project nearly impossible to re-license: it's packed
full of licensed code and libraries that don't belong to MS.

~~~
zerr
Yes, that's the common excuse/reason. But, why MS can't negotiate the move
with those 3rd parties? That would be a good PR for them as well.

~~~
acidictadpole
Because it turns from "Microsoft has nothing to lose by doing this" to
"Microsoft is going to lose a bunch of money spending time negotiating with
and paying third parties to be allowed to release their libraries with
windows' source code".

People's time isn't free.

~~~
luma
And that's presuming that the entities that held the original license still
exist today. It's a morass that can be nearly impossible to dig your way out
of after 10+ years.

~~~
Lx1oG-AWb6h_ZG0
It’s actually 35+ years, Windows 1.0 was released in 1985, and I don’t doubt
that some (much) older DOS code still exists in one form or the other in their
repo.

The other problem is open sourcing the Windows code would be also involve open
sourcing its crazy huge build system and tooling — it’s not a simple makefile
— which is probably another level of impractical.

~~~
Someone1234
Likely true.

They were able to get rid of a lot of Windows 1.0/Dos back-compat junk with
the release of x64 (due to loss of native 16 bit support). I'm sure there's
still some though.

~~~
tjalfi
Windows 10 32bit is still around and supports 16bit applications.

My employer uses 32bit VDIs to run a few legacy applications.

~~~
Someone1234
I wonder how long they will support 32x Windows 10? I don't think they've
announced an end-of-life, but it has to be at least on the books.

It must be pretty expensive to port/test all of their patches/updates on
something few use [0.70% per [0]). They already killed it on their server line
(although it was silly on there with the low memory limits). Nvidia has
already announced they're ending support[1].

[0] [https://www.pcbenchmarks.net/os-
marketshare.html](https://www.pcbenchmarks.net/os-marketshare.html)

[1] [https://www.extremetech.com/computing/267180-nvidia-ends-
sup...](https://www.extremetech.com/computing/267180-nvidia-ends-support-
for-32-bit-operating-systems)

~~~
cr0sh
> I wonder how long they will support 32x Windows 10?

I noted in another comment that they have a similar problem with people
wanting VB6 open sourced, because so many businesses rely on VB6 apps - some
written internally or exclusively for their business.

Windows 10 (from what I remember) almost didn't support VB6, but in the end
they included the runtime DLL to allow for the apps to work. I wonder if this
is a part of the 32x thing? Seems a likely possibility...

VB6 and the companies relying on it might be an albatross around Microsoft's
neck; for how much longer, I'm not sure.

------
bilekas
I won't echo the statements from others about the headache in licencing it
would be for Microsoft but I would like to point out :

In the petition:

> We want more proof that you really respect users and user freedom, and
> aren't just using those concepts as marketing when convenient.

How do you even define that ? It really seems like this was just setup to
inflame people about Microsoft again. Yeah windows 7 is end of life.. ~10
years.. I would consider that pretty reasonable.

Demanding for the source in a petition ? That's quite unreasonable.

~~~
gmueckl
This is a publicity stunt. Nobody in their right mind would expect that this
would get any official reaction from MS, even if it's just a plain "no". I
just don't get what the FSF has to gain from that. It rather makes them look
petty in my eyes.

~~~
PretzelFisch
They get a sound bite, with the hope of reminding anyone thinking of buying
windows 10 that it is closed source and maybe should think about the
ramifications.

------
mangecoeur
> "nothing to lose by liberating a version of their operating system"

Ummm... except for all of the proprietary and valuable IP that is anyway
shared by subsequent versions of Windows? It's not like they scrapped every
bit of code when they started working on Win8, Win10 etc. Some bits of the
control panel are pretty much unchanged since Windows NT!

------
ChrisSD
> But Microsoft is unlikely to cave into the Windows 7 demands that FSF
> outlined in a petition launched last week

There should be an award for understatement of the month.

This petition[0] is more about making a point than any realistic expectation
of open sourcing Windows 7.

[0]: [https://www.fsf.org/windows/upcycle-
windows-7](https://www.fsf.org/windows/upcycle-windows-7)

~~~
HoustonRefugee
I am pretty sure the C-level at Microsoft is having quite the laugh at this
petition.

~~~
mattl
I doubt they even know it exists

------
sfgweilr4f
To state the obvious: Windows 7 is the predecessor of Windows 10.

So open-sourcing Windows 7 is effectively open-sourcing Windows 10. I'd be
very surprised if Windows 10 had no code from Windows 7. I'd also be surprised
if Microsoft actually owns all the code/assets in Windows. Licensing is a
thing.

Open-sourcing Windows 10 as a "current" product is requesting the source to
everything Windows. That is a big ask. It would have to fit into a core
strategic change for Microsoft.

Microsoft has likely got plans of its own to embrace and absorb Linux. Why
should I as a Big Corporate with full licenses be forced to maintain separate
Linux machines? Why can't Enterprise natively run Linux binaries? WSL is part
of the answer to those questions but I'm fairly sure Microsoft has bigger
plans. Who says they won't simply pivot and make Windows run on their own
flavor of Linux or a defined distribution? Sounds crazy but... stranger things
have happened and licensing is a real money maker. The ability to lock people
to Windows is still very lucrative however. For the foreseeable future they
are much more likely to run Linux on Windows and keep their existing control.

I seriously doubt Windows 7 will be open-sourced while Windows 10 remains
closed-source.

~~~
chooseaname
> Who says they won't simply pivot and make Windows run on their own flavor of
> Linux or a defined distribution? Sounds crazy but...

I don't think it sounds crazy at all. I've had the same feeling since WSL was
released. And that feeling has gotten stronger since they showed of the Duo.

~~~
ChrisSD
They could, but why? Microsoft already has a kernel. It works for them.

If they did pivot to Linux, they'd still need to support NT for a long time to
come. They'd also need to write a win32 layer for Linux (WINE, as it is,
wouldn't be enough) as well as compatibility shims for Windows drivers, etc.
And after they'd done all this work, while still supporting the NT kernel,
what have they gained? Little that can't be done already.

More likely is that they continue to port .NET and/or UWP so applications
built with those technologies will be cross platform. This may eventually mean
they no longer need Windows but could maintain a Microsoft branded Linux
distro. But that wouldn't be "Windows" by any sensible definition of the term.

~~~
Someone1234
The NT kernel itself has fallen from one of the best kernels technologically
to significantly behind Linux. The design is still solid, but after tens of
years of under-investment and little internal political willingness to make
substantial improvement (they're a very conservative company at heart) it has
just been allowed to rot.

I think WSL (V1 and V2) has been showcasing just how bad it has become. From
locking issues, to small file performance, to scheduler problems, and beyond.

Everyone said Microsoft would never dump the Trident rendering engine either
(used in IE/Edge/WebUI Controls). And that was true, until it wasn't. They may
not move to Linux tomorrow, but ten years from now as NT continues to get
little love, and Linux sails ahead? We'll see...

~~~
sfgweilr4f
Windows on Linux is completely possible. But... not yet.

~~~
sfgweilr4f
It IS possible. Anyone saying otherwise is asserting Microsoft have no
experience in writing OS at all and that is absurd. The only sticking point is
corporate strategy - for which I currently see no evidence.

But possible. Wine shows it is possible.

------
Santosh83
Even if they wanted to, I doubt they could do so given all the third-party
software they must have incorporated inside Windows. Perhaps it is possible to
strip those out but still am sure MS doesn't want the entire world looking at
their code, given that parts of the kernel of Windows 7 are probably
functionally the same under Windows 10, so you'll essentially enable everyone
to try and find bugs in the system without having to reverse engineer.

------
dehrmann
> We urge you to respect the freedom and privacy of your users – not simply
> strong-arm them into the newest Windows version.

The software is 10 years old, MS bends over backwards to maintain backwards
compatibility, and they _gave_ Windows 10 upgrades to Windows 7 users.

~~~
zamalek
> they gave Windows 10 upgrades to Windows 7 users.

And they still do, even though the upgrade period has official lapsed. I
strongly doubt Microsoft will buckle to the type of these arguments being made
by FSF. The list of demands read like they were written by a neurotic
significant other.

That being said...

I really do hope Microsoft open sources Windows some day, but the problem is
that the users that will enjoy the most freedom on day 1 would be black hats.
Windows consists of MLOC that has never been publicly audited and it takes far
longer to identify and install patches than it does to exploit a
vulnerability.

If a logical argument that addresses the risks, as well the benefits that
Microsoft would see, I am sure that Microsoft would at least enter into dialog
about this. Even though RMS (and by association FSF) are fundamentally
correct, I have yet to see coherent and reasonable communication originating
from them in the Microsoft and FOSS discussion.

------
grenoire
The article has a sentence on the matter, but just to expand a bit more:
Windows 7 is not a new piece of self-standing software. It includes past
Windows releases, and future Windows releases include it. It doesn't make
sense for Microsoft to do this.

Besides, I don't see any person/people being able to understand such a complex
feat of engineering (and legacy) sufficiently to maintain it for years to
come.

~~~
gmueckl
Well, there's Wine and ReactOS as two major efforts to reimplement Win32 user
space and the operating system as a whole. These are big team efforts,
certainly, but they manifest a very detailed understanding of Windows, mostly
obtained through reverse engineering.

I would assume that there is enough interest in maintaining Windows -
especially commercial interest - that finding and funding a sufficiently large
and knowledgeable team is actually not unrealistic. It's just unrealistic to
assume that the source code will ever be published willingly by Microsoft as
long as any part of it is a direct ancestor to a product they still sell.

~~~
krilly
You make a good point, although I think it's pretty clear that ReactOS
cheated.

[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/07/03/reactos_windows_res...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/07/03/reactos_windows_research_kernel_claim/)

What about open sourcing, say, windows 95? That seems more achievable, and
probably more helpful.

~~~
gmueckl
Windows 95 is a kludge by today's standards and it's been the little brother
of the more complete Win32 implementation in the NT line. As a result, it is
missing a ton of things that are essential parts of modern Windows. I don't
see any value in that.

~~~
ChrisSD
Arguably, the kludge is supporting Win32 on an NT kernel. The win32 layer on
top of NT is a mess of backwards compatibility hacks with more modern NT and
NTFS features hammered in. The native NT layer is much better but officially
it's unstable.

Compared to that, Windows 9x was less kludge and more a straightforward
implementation of Win32, though of course lacking modern features.

------
richard_todd
What they could more easily do, and what seems to fit with their strategy
lately, is open source further portions of Windows 10. (MIT rather than GPL
though, obviously) They are already way down the path (winUI, NET5,
PowerShell, terminal, etc). I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see more of the
bundled apps like Paint and Notepad show up on GitHub one day, for example. If
they could get explorer.exe over to the open-source side, that would be huge.
And I don’t think MS has anything to lose by doing that. It seems they’d
mainly want to would protect the stuff that powers/differentiates Azure.

------
TeaDude
I would have settled for XP. I love that clunky old thing but Win7 is the
cooler faster son that was "just right" with the most new features (That you
actually want) before a lot of the legacy stuff rotted off in windows 8.
(Still technically there but showers you with errors if you attempt to use)

Obviously this will never ever happen for corporate, licencing and government
reasons but a man can dream...

------
dehrmann
> The petition was aiming to gather at least 7,777 supporters and today has
> exceeded that by 1,000.

Maybe those 8,000+ supporters should go contribute to ReactOS.

------
lousken
Licencing issues aside, I don't think MS would do it just because they want to
see old windows versions dead. They don't even care about W8.1 (e.g. lack of
dx12) even though it's still supported.

------
m-p-3
The more realistic option is a production-ready ReactOS release before
Microsoft open-sources their past OSes.

------
AnIdiotOnTheNet
> We want more proof that you really respect users and user freedom, and
> aren't just using those concepts as marketing when convenient.

Considering the state of telemetry and adware in Windows 10, not to mention
the history of forcing updates and the recent burying of the ability to setup
a non-live account, I'd have to say that only a fool would believe they
respect users and user freedom.

------
mirthandmadness
An open-source version of the last good Windows, I'd like that.

~~~
acdha
“Last good Windows” – just like XP, 2000, 98, and NT? Nothing makes people
forget about all of the problems like not wanting to learn something new.

~~~
flir
2000 was pretty good. NT with a nicer interface. I was on that far longer than
is reasonable.

------
djsumdog
This seems so useless. Why not petition instead for Microsoft to work on open
sourcing the Titan HTML rendering engine?

Microsoft spent years removing a lot of the NSCA Moasic stuff, and there is a
good chance they own all of the Titan/Edge code. With their browser switching
to Blink/Chromium, surely they could put in a few months of effort to try and
make it publishable / open source.

Opening sourcing their entire operating system is never going to happen and
the petition is a useless publicity stunt to remind people that MS doesn't
really care about open source. I wish the FSF had asked for something more
useful/realistic instead.

------
martin1975
Personally, I would like to see MS do the inverse of what they did with Linux
- move to Linux as their primary kernel and embed the NT kernel with hooks
into Linux, either via hypervisor or directly if hypervisor doesn't give it
the performance it needs for us to depart from NT kernel permanently. Not
saying NT is bad... just that Linux has so much more momentum on the server,
is well liked, popular and 'free'. Make NT an afterthought in Linux... not the
other way around.

------
trollied
Licensing issues aside, it'd be very dangerous from a security perspective.
0-days would come thick & fast.

~~~
dehrmann
And not just to Windows 7. Enough of Windows 10 runs the same code that it
would be more vulnerable. That said, there's no reason to think state actors
don't already have the Windows 10 source.

------
ComodoHacker
Licensing and economic aspects aside, I think it would do more harm than good
from security perspective. Malicious actors will start finding and exploiting
0-days at much faster pace than benevolent actors can (a) find them, (b) patch
and (c) get patches applied to the userbase.

------
zerr
FoxPro as well :)

~~~
HoustonRefugee
I think it would be more productive to do that and release the source for
other out of date platforms like GW-BASIC and MS COBOL.

------
mastrsushi
The Free Software Community can't even maintain its own consumer operating
system. How the hell could they actively maintain a behemoth like Windows 7?

------
mehrdadn
I like what the FSF sometimes does, but this is going to stick out in my mind
like sore thumb as an example of how they make it hard to keep doing that...

Edit: fixed typo

~~~
acidictadpole
What does the EFF have to do with this? Are they related to the FSF somehow?

------
exabrial
If if weren't for Excel, would there be any reason for businesses to stay on
Windows? That seems to be the "killer app" for finance.

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
Active Directory, SMB, Outlook (and the other non-Excel parts of office), the
ludicrous number of tiny proprietary applications that keep the world running,
custom business applications with 3 decades of continuous development on them,
etc.

It is somewhat amazing to me how ignorant some people in this industry can be
of why Windows is still used.

~~~
exabrial
I'm one of them. I'm guessing it's just the era in which your business was
setup.

Maybe a modern day equiv: Right now there's no exit option for AWS unless you
just happen to build an insulating layer with kubernetes and many other layers
of indirection.

------
mixmastamyk
I'm not sure what good Win7 would be, now that it is EOL. But, I'd like to see
them take the relevant parts to bolster ReactOS.

~~~
Koshkin
> _relevant_

Problem is, opensourcing Windows 7 under a permissive license might make
ReactOS itself irrelevant.

~~~
mixmastamyk
Won’t happen as dozens of folks have already explained.

------
shmerl
They can't open source all the backdoors and DRM in there.

------
cosmiccatnap
They won't do this because then you would see how much of this codebase is
just the same as it ever was with a new GUI. Reminds me of that board meeting
at the beginning of Tron legacy. This is accountability and forced innovation,
two things Microsoft avoids at all costs.

