
An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source - justinkterry
http://www.justinkterry.com/2017/08/an-argument-for-why-windows-will-go.html
======
hungerstrike
> ..the fight for Windows server against Linux is one Windows absolutely can’t
> win..

Windows server already has been winning on-premise every year for a long time
There are way more SMBs out there than big businesses and they all run Windows
servers on-premise. Just take a look at the usage numbers of one popular piece
of cross-platform software that IT departments might run -
[https://community.spiceworks.com/networking/articles/2462-se...](https://community.spiceworks.com/networking/articles/2462-server-
virtualization-and-os-trends)

Oh, you were just talking about web-servers, right? Well Windows server also
has greater than 30% of the public web server market share, more than any one
Linux variant -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_syste...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Public_servers_on_the_Internet)

As the Apple crowd likes to point out - Microsoft is also a profit leader
compared to companies that hock Linux.

> Creative work is going to mobile in a big way...

No it's not.

> ...gaming is already mostly mobile...

Not really, unless you contort your stats to include every single person
playing Candy Crush on their phone. Have you ever watched Twitch? Nobody is
playing mobile games there. Everybody there is running Windows.

> ...there’s been a huge move to natively support Linux with games (roughly
> half of new steam releases and 25% of all steam games are already on
> Linux)...

Oh really? Linux having 25% the support for games means Windows is going down,
but somehow Windows having 30% of the web server market means that Windows is
also going to lose there? Pffffft. OK!

This article is garbage.

------
Flimm
> Also note that Microsoft will still be able to charge money for the open
> source code because there's no reason that you can’t other than piracy
> concerns, and due to the increased legal scrutiny corporations tend not to
> pirate products, unlike the general public.

Yes, Microsoft will still be able to charge money for the open source code,
but if the code is open source, other people will be able to distribute it
free of charge or for a fee, that is not at all illegal or piracy! Open source
has always meant this. Let me quote from the Open Source Definition, by the
Open Source Initiative, the only authority on what constitutes open source:

> 1\. Free Redistribution

> The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the
> software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing
> programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a
> royalty or other fee for such sale.

All of the open source licenses listed on osi.org allow users to redistribute
the software free of charge.

~~~
b4ux1t3
Open source does not mean you are free to distribute the code, necessarily. It
literally just means that the code is available for inspection. Paid-for open
source software isn't a new thing.

You're thinking of _free_ open source software. While I'm not a huge FOSS-
head, there is a distinct difference between "_free_ and open source" and just
"open source". It's all in the licensing.

I could, in theory, write a license that says, basically, you can't distribute
my source code, but you can look at it, compile it, and even alter it to fit
your needs. In fact, a lot of licenses on older software projects allowed for
exactly that.

I could also release a license that says that you can only redistribute my
code if you haven't purchased it, but if you have purchased it, you're not
allowed to redistribute it. Pointless? Yeah, probably. But that's still a
valid license.

Anything goes, as long as you can come up with the proper legalese to put in
the license.

EDIT: I get it, some people support OSI's definitions, some FSF's, and
apparently sharing the opinion of one has angered the supporters of the other.
A lot of this is subjective, and I know that. I'd appreciate it if you
discussed and voted accordingly.

~~~
CrystalGamma
If you can look at, but not redistribute, freely, it is called 'shared
source'. Open Source really is about free redistribution. And the difference
to Free Software is mostly about the stance on community and lock-in.

~~~
bfred_it
"Open source" is very generic, it literally just means "Not closed/private
source." Nothing else about redistribution and restrictions is implied. For
that there are specific licenses, which the article didn't mention.

~~~
Vendan
It's not open source unless it's an open source license, and it's not an open
source license unless it meets [https://opensource.org/osd-
annotated](https://opensource.org/osd-annotated). You are referring to "source
available". Please stop conflating the two.

~~~
b4ux1t3
Can you blame us? This is largely a subjective matter, and the different
organizations who talk about this kind of thing have often-conflicting
ideologies about how all this works.

When I hear "open source", I don't know which camp the speaker is sitting in.
It's perfectly reasonable to get mixed up sometimes.

~~~
asfdsfggtfd
> This is largely a subjective matter,

It just isn't subjective. "Open Source" is a technical term with a clear well
understood meaning.

~~~
b4ux1t3
It is a technical term defined by a bunch of people who got together and
agreed that their opinions (however educated they may be) are more correct
than other people's. That's extremely subjective, and not universally
accepted.

Technical terms have definitions that transcend the opinions of people who use
them. When I say "byte", everyone knows exactly what I mean, as it's a unit of
measurement. When I say "agile", it could mean any number of different things,
depending on context. When people say "open source", the thought that comes to
a lot of people's minds is simply "I can see the _source_ code, because it's
out in the _open_."

It's subjective, and, frankly, annoying. It shouldn't matter how something is
licensed, because the most important aspect of software is whether or not it
provides value and helps me do my job. Bickering about semantics doesn't get
work done.

~~~
dogma1138
That's how definitions work. The fact that you ignore one doesn't make you
more thoughtful or insightful it just makes you look like a special snowflake.

Your example is also incorrect because I'll assume you think that a Byte is 8
bits but technically it's not, it's an arrangement of bits a byte can be
0-255bits, it was common to have non 8bit bytes in the past.

The 8 bit byte was set by a specific ISO standard and later by IEEE but it's
defined as 8 bits only within those standards.

Agile also has a definition if nothing else because you have bodies and
various foundations promoting a specific implementation of it.

~~~
b4ux1t3
I'm not ignoring or disagreeing with anything. There's no need to be a dick.
I'm just saying that there are conflicting "definitions" out there.

~~~
dogma1138
I'm not trying to be a dick, there aren't "conflicting" definitions, at least
not on the subject of source code redistribution.

"Open Source" has a specific definition that is the one from the OSI.

[https://opensource.org/osd-annotated](https://opensource.org/osd-annotated)

Any conflicts that exist are not conflicts in the definition of Open Source,
but are different definitions for different terms which is why the terms open-
source software and free and open-source software exist.

This isn't a subjective matter, this is a very well defined term, if nothing
else because OSS and FOSS software is used in the industry including in
commercial products this requires the definitions and the licenses to be very
very specific to meet legal and regulatory requirements.

So while you can say there are different software licenses to meet the
requirements of being Open Source it needs to meet the definitions set by the
OSI which are in general mean that the source code must be available, that the
distribution is not restricted in any way which usually means that it's
distributed under a free and non-discriminatory license agreement.

You may chose not the follow this definition but this doesn't mean that this
is a correct action, this is no more subjective than the definition of a
kilogram. Definitions exist for a reason and that is to remove ambiguity, if
ambiguity exists its either because there is no definition or consensus which
is clearly not the case with Open Source Software.

~~~
b4ux1t3
> "Open Source" has a specific definition that is the one from the _OSI_

Emphasis mine.

~~~
dogma1138
And? Kilogram has a definition if you take the one from NIST it will follow
the one defined by the CGS system.

------
pgeorgi
So the author has some commentary on operating system code licensing with no
understanding on open source licenses (that bit about charging money for the
source code and "piracy", see other comments here) or proprietary development
habits (randomly licensing bits and pieces from third parties when they're no
differentiator and too onerous to develop in-house)

Unless those third party licenses allow for redistribution of the source code
under open source licensing terms (haha. no.), the result will _at best_ be a
CDDL-alike licensed code distribution of everything else. See how well that
worked for OpenSolaris' reception in the wider open source ecosystem.

~~~
yuhong
Third party code would be mostly a problem for XP and older with things like
HyperTerminal and Pinball. Even for MS they were a problem:
[https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20080225-00/?p=...](https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20080225-00/?p=23343)

~~~
pgeorgi
With OpenSolaris, there was some l10n code in libc that they weren't able to
get clearance for some reason.

Windows has ~30 years of legacy. There are probably some bits of Adobe code in
font rendering - although at least in this case, Adobe still exists so at
least it's possible to call somebody to try to negotiate.

If there's some significant piece of code in some ancient video codec (to pick
some silly example) that came from a third party in the late 90s who then went
under, it'll be a mess to track down if there's even anybody who needs to be
called.

Now, such a codec is well isolated: "Free Windows doesn't support the
AncientCrapware4Windows codec. Does anybody care?", but what if some
fundamental parts of the shell was licensed back then and dragged forward all
those years?

It's the long tail that hurts and just checking _if_ there's anything to do is
lots of legal work that scales by lines of code (and OpenSolaris was tiny
compared to Windows). For a product that (as the article claims) approaches a
retail value of $0, that's a steep investment.

~~~
yuhong
Yea, both are true. The Adobe code is called ATMFD (which last time I checked
don't even have PDB symbols on the MS symbol server), and there is also the
Indeo codec that was already partially disabled years ago due to even MS not
having been able to patch it (indeed, MS created a special telemetry stub DLL
that calls the real one to log how often it is used). I don't believe either
is required for Windows to run though and they are also well-isolated
components.

~~~
pgeorgi
It seems I wasn't clear enough on that, but either were just examples.
Another, OpenSolaris' libc components, is more intricate.

Unless Microsoft's lawyers can make sure that something like this (deeply
integrated component with unclear terms with regard to relicensing) does _not_
exist, publishing the Windows source code is a rather expensive task.

------
scmurcott
This post reminds me of the very ambitious and still going ReactOS project -
not to be confused with the javascript framework.
[https://www.reactos.org/project-
news/reactos-045-released](https://www.reactos.org/project-
news/reactos-045-released)

------
TremendousJudge
>Creative work is going to mobile in a big way

What does the author mean by 'creative work' here? Writing? Image edition?
Video edition? Software development? None of those things are going mobile in
any way shape or form as far as I know

> Losing PC gamers also isn’t a major concern for Microsoft, because again
> gaming is already mostly mobile

 _Casual_ gaming is already mostly mobile. Hardcore gaming is still very much
a non-mobile thing, and will stay as such for the foreseeable future.
Companies are developing their games (think Call of Duty, Overwatch,
Battlefield, Dota) with consoles and desktops in mind. And regarding gaming on
Linux, it's better than it was -- it was nil -- but it's still a joke. Go to
the steam store page right now and see how many games on the front page run on
Linux

------
SmellyGeekBoy
Seems like there are some good arguments here for making Windows _free_ (as in
beer) but _open source?_ I don't get it.

~~~
TwoNineA
I stopped reading at "has caused Microsoft to develop operating systems that
people wanted".

\- Telemetry.

\- Candy Crush.

\- Updates crammed down my throat.

\- ReFS removed from W10 Pro.

\- Still an OS that doesn't know if it's for touch or keyboard/mouse. The
information density on Settings app for example is laughable on a 27 inch
monitor.

\- Every major update used to reset search/privacy settings.

But yeah, it's what people wanted.

~~~
sigi45
It works. I can play games on it. I can play much more games on it and easier
than on linux and macos. Lightroom runs on it. Everyone knows it.

But still your comment doesn't even answer the comment you commented on.

I use windows and arch linux and ubuntu. Like them all.

And yes my arch linux i need to update anyway otherwise my chrome and kernel
is out of date and insecure.

~~~
8draco8
Your Windows installation is insecure full stop. No matter when you patched.
Even if all vulnerabilities would be patched then there are still backdoors
siting and waiting to be exploited.

~~~
d44m
So is your Android, iOS, macOS and every linux flavour out there. What's so
special about Windows being insecure?

~~~
cliffy
Closed-source just ups the uncertainty about security. I'm not saying open
source is a panacea, but I think in general it increases certainty about
security to some extent.

~~~
sigi45
You remember the OpenSSL debacle?

------
alkonaut
It could perhaps go open source in the same way .NET has. A core part of it
might be made open source, such as the IOT core windows bits. They need a good
reason for it. Hobbyists adapting it for various SoCs could be one such
reason.

The vast codebase that is the "full" x64 Windows desktop OS though? I'll eat
my hat if that happens. Source made visible, sure. That's already true for a
lot of it. But proper open source, don't hold your breath.

------
pksadiq
> Microsoft has publicly stated that Windows 10 will be the last product in
> the Windows line.

This may be because:

    
    
      1. Cloud is where the money is.
      2. Maintaining an OS is a lot of burden (Hardware drivers,
      patents, tie ups with several hardware/software vendors,
      developer cost, and so on)
    

So the simple thing they can consider is to ditch the OS, and develop platform
independent solutions. Gradually this will (hopefully) happen.

Releasing the OS source will be too much costly (cleaning back doors, lots of
code smell, and so on). This will cause too many people vulnerable to attacks.
And that can't happen.

So no, Windows won't go open source.

------
eighthnate
I doubt they'll make Windows open source ( maybe pieces of it ). They will
make the OS free and collect data on you and sell you ads. Think Nadella said
as much in his interviews.

Also, the author should have defined what he meant by "open source" because it
means different things to different people.

------
sevensor
> have to lose for making Windows open source and requiring people to pay to
> use win32 apps?

Surely, if Windows is open source, we can port Wine to it and run all the
win32 executables we want? Wine already runs old Windows programs better than
Windows does.

~~~
b4ux1t3
No, it really doesn't. Windows has had backwards compatibility as a huge
priority for a long time, often to their detriment. You can literally update a
machine from Windows 3.1 to windows 10, and programs written for Windows 3.1
will still work.[1]

[1]:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPnehDhGa14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPnehDhGa14)

EDIT: TO be clear, this is a video of upgrading to Windows 7, and there is a
direct upgrade path to 10 from 7. Also, as per another user's reply, this
doesn't hold true for 64-bit. However, that doesn't change the fact that Wine
doesn't and really can't run win32 better than win32 does.

~~~
drdaeman
> and programs written for Windows 3.1 will still work

Not on x86_64.

[https://superuser.com/questions/140953/why-cant-a-64-bit-
os-...](https://superuser.com/questions/140953/why-cant-a-64-bit-os-
run-a-16-bit-application/140956#140956)

~~~
alkonaut
They made a decision to cut the compatibility but also made the 32bit XP mode
VM ship with windows for a transition period (unsure if it's still available).
I think it feels like a fair compromise (assuming the VM only causes an
overhead for those who need it, but having a whole kernel subsystem for legacy
apps might mean security or performance issues for _all_ users)

------
yuhong
The fun thing is that I can also imagine how it will technically likely work
too, such as test signing .msu and .cab to install code modifications for
testing. Outlook recently added .msu to blocked attachments.

------
auggierose
Lol. That is not going to happen. When I was working on a project that
required access to the Windows source code, the security hoops I had to jump
through were ridiculous. Can't see them abandoning all that nice security
machinery.

~~~
yodsanklai
Actually, I worked in such a project a long time ago and I had the opposite
feeling. They just gave us a few cds with the code on it. There were some
restrictions as who could use it and so on, but it seems they didn't really
care.

~~~
auggierose
Lucky you. We got RSA tokens and devices and software so that we could connect
to the Redmond server where the stuff was hosted. Copying it from that
environment to your own was NOT ALLOWED.

------
knodi
I hope windows goes open source and windows kernel is replaced with modified
linux kernel.

