I was at ChefConf, the comment was made during a panel discussion on open source . On the panel there was an engineer from Facebook, an IT Director from Gap, and Mark Russinovich the CTO of Azure (note Azure, not Windows).
The conversation went something like this (paraphrasing):
Moderator: "Microsoft used to really suck, and they were really anti-open source. But now they are open sourcing things like CLR on GitHub. I bet one thing they will never open source is Windows."
Mark: "You never know, it's definitely possible. Crazy stuff happens."
Nothing more on the subject.
That said, here's how I remember it:
1. Metz: ... would Microsoft ever open source Windows?
2. Crowd: Cheers. Applause. People shouting "Do it!"
3. Russinovich: You never know, it's definitely possible. Crazy stuff happens.
I found the middle part more interesting than anything else. It's a perilous road to be sure but I think Microsoft may underestimate how much good something like open sourcing Windows could do them.
I believe all the talks were filmed. Hopefully the video gets posted.
So yes, while open sourcing windows would be a massive undertaking involving nearly every level of management and buy in at Microsoft - Mark R would carry a big stick in such a discussion.
I agree with everything you said, but it's important to note here that Russinovich is a well-known Windows reverse engineer, the founder of SysInternals, and the author of the Windows Internals books (these are akin to the Design & Implementation of BSD books, but for Windows).
He's something of a deity amongst Windows kernel hackers. I also believe he pops on HN now and again.
Moderator: "I bet you won't open source Windows."
Mark "Hey we could open source Windows! Hell we might even do it during the launch of Windows 10 winkwink. You never know winkwink. winkwink"
"If you open source something but it comes with a build system that takes rocket scientists and three months to set up, what’s the point?"
When was that said? Or was it? That would be something that is a blocker to adoption.
1. Windows playing well with other OS on my laptop. I updated my Windows 8 to Windows 8.1 and I could no longer boot into Linux
2. Dont use patents to stifle free software 
3. Port Internet Explorer, Microsoft Office to Linux and offer immunity for projects like Wine for reimplementing Windows API. Do not change APIs unreasonably to sabotage these projects. Let Windows compete on its own merit ( speed, performance, stabilty, backwards compatibility, hackability etc ).
But yeah, I am skeptical about this "New Microsoft"
I hadn't used Windows for about 12 years when it came on a new PC that I bought. I installed Steam and played games on it for about 2 months. Then when I upgraded from 8.0 to 8.1 it offered to repair one of my Linux partitions. Thats nice I thought.
It was really inconvenient when it overwrote my root linux partition and I had to waste an hour repartitioning and replacing Windows with something a little less aggressive.
Maybe in another 12 years things will have improved and I will be able to try it again...
Linux is not a platform.
At best, Microsoft can port IE and Office to Ubuntu or Red Hat. But "Linux in General" is a horrible misnomer that needs to be eradicated.
Just because a piece of software works in one configuration of Linux does NOT mean it will work on other configurations. "Linux" is a horrible platform. You have to build on top of actual platforms (ie: Red Hat, CentOS, Debian, Ubuntu).
Beyond that, IE is DirectX rendered now IIRC. Porting IE implies porting DirectX, which will probably never happen. (DirectX relies on specific hardware drivers...).
It does, as long as you use UEFI boot, since this was specifically designed to allow clean booting from multiple OSes without creating conflicts.
If you're using legacy MBR/BIOS boot, supporting multibooting involves so many unreliable hacks, you can't realistically expect it to be supported by anyone.
A single false positive here means a valid windows 8 install will fail to boot because a Bootloader was not written.
Do you think Microsoft is willing to take that risk?
Just leave MBR behind. UEFI does what you want. UEFI is nice.
And a compliant UEFI firmware should let you provide your own trust keys. Which by default makes it more reputable and secure than the internet CA-model everyone else is willing to put their trust in.
So tell me what your problem is. I'm genuinely curious.
Please show me a compliant UEFI firmware that allows for custom keys. I'm genuinely curious.
What it says is not that it must be mandatory, but that being able to disable secure-boot is not a requirement. It's clearly sneaky, but it's not the same.
Note also that nowhere does it say that you can no longer install your own keys.
Some parts are what I'd call "sneaky", but this Windows 10 spec is not hijacking the X86 architecture to run Windows only, like you hint at either.
As for adding your own keys, I only have Intel mobos with UEFI and I've seen menus for adding them. This article from the intel forums seems to give you some leads if you want to go looking:
Unfortunately, this means that i can have my own key if I avoid tablets and laptops, and only build my own hardware. I'll still have to use Canonical or RedHat's (possibly NSA/GCHQ-compromised) keys in order to have portable computing.
Office maybe, but is there any demand for IE on Linux?
Sure, that's a problem that ought to be addressed by those sites, but it's still a possible use case.
N.B. not a web dev, so please put me straight if I'm wrong.
Forget about Windows. That's a malicious thing they've always done with Office, even after promising to adhere to a "standard". It's so ridiculous even their own different Office versions aren't properly compatible with that "standard".
I went deep into the rabbit hole and learned a whole lot on how booting my computers works at the time but I gave up and have to spam F8 when I turn on my computer now so I don't boot into Windows.
Edit : Care to explain why this is getting downvoted ?
I can now finally press my power button and walk away knowing it'll boot into Ubuntu in peace.
They have the office market. Yay. I bet that's growing at, what, 2% a year? Maybe? They have home pc's as well. Great.
But where it matters? Mobile, cloud, start-ups - all the new, cool, exciting, future stuff - they're basically absent.
And the new CEO knows that.
So they open-sourced .NET, the compilers, everything. First-class support for OS X and Linux. Is that because they like it? No, I doubt it. It's to stay alive and relevant in the next 10-15 years.
You don't seriously think that was anything but a consequence of your specific setup, right? Dual booting with Windows 8.1 and Linux is most certainly possible.
Yet is is. It is a consequence of the fact that windows overwrites things like the master boot record that live outside of it's partition on a hard drive without asking the user first.
Yes dual booting is possible. But as always installing windows second makes everything else unbootable (until fixed).
Yeah, I'm 100% sure you fucked up. Windows' bootloader offers me either Windows 8.1 or starting GRUB, from which I can start Linux.
Of course, the first option on Grub is Windows and the first option in Windows is Gub so I can get a nice bootloop.
You must be kidding.
Care to actually write a small bit about your opinion so that we can have a discussion?
God forbid you ever be wrong about anything.
Even though the comment you are responding to is brash and unfounded, this comment is even worse. Is it really necessary to search out a poster's web presence/background just to retaliate against some perceived slight? Seems to be against HN spirit.
If it weren't in the "spirit" of HN, it wouldn't be such a critical feature of the website.
EDIT: I probably won't respond any more after this regardless of what is posted. Derailing the thread further than I have is pointless.
I think you're reading too much into my comment. I don't think you're giving me the a charitable reading of my comment, which is against HN's spirit.
Furthermore, comment threads are for everyone, and not just the people participating. Letting us know whether or not you're going to respond is very "you"-centric, and yet again doesn't really fit with the "spirit" of HN.
Maybe in the future you examine your glass house before throwing stones.
That's why you're devolving into name-calling.
And these terse, off-topic replies are further evidence of your lack of a leg to stand on.
You haven't contributed one whit to this conversation. Be topical or get ignored.
I'm sure you're credible in something. Alas, your credibility in this matter has been compromised by your words.
In the meantime Windows 10 certification no longer requires option to disable secure boot. It might not be possible to install alternative operating systems on new computers.
ReactOS is nice, but it's a whole OS, and it's not necessarily the greatest option just yet, plus you wouldn't get to run many Linux packages.
The only solution to this is to stop having math and logic patents, which are already illegal under any sane interpretation of patent law: its Congress and USPTO that continue allowing these un-patents to be issued.
People who don't want support are probably pirating Windows anyway.
If the platform will be open, opening a huge market for support ,Microsoft will have a very tough life.
Interesting things sure have been going on since the LA Clippers changed ownership!
I wonder if there's an issue like this that would preclude Microsoft from releasing the source for Windows.
In fact, I could argue they are already slowly going a "partial open source" route, with their gradual open sourcing of parts of the dotnet runtime.
There are real costs behind all that, when developing and maintaining several competing options as well as when deciding between or targeting them. Easily being able to look at the Windows source code would probably be a nice thing, but I am not sure if I would value this high enough to risk ending with a fragmented ecosystem a decade or so in the future.
Then their product would come out and work quite well with their system. IIRC, an example of this was RealPlayer vs MediaPlayer.
Also, open source allows security audits and faster fixes, etc., at least in principle.
Only reading the source is a different story. It should actually be a exceptional use case, for example for debugging, but besides that you should of course usually not worry about implementation details or even take dependencies on them. And Microsoft's documentation of the public surface is pretty good and therefore there is rarely a need to look at the source to understand the functionality.
Finally at least for research purpose it has been possible for a long time to obtain a copy of the source, not sure if this is possible or how hard it would be for non-research purposes.
Of course, there are differences, such as Java being a language, library, and tooling, whereas Windows is an OS in addition to APIs and tooling. I'm sure you're right that there would be costs as well as benefits to open-sourcing of Windows.
What if Flash had been open sourced in the early 2000s? HTML5 would have never been created.
In either case these companies would have been in charge of global standards. I'm not sure if that would have been better for them or not?
Although in the past MSFT has used non-free, source-visible licenses, they seem to understand very well what "open source" means. I don't think they use their "shared source" licenses for new things. If they are serious about freeing Windows, I'm sure they will do it under a free license.
Edit: Sigh, downvotes already, so here is your reminder of where open source comes from and what it means:
one of my favorite video games, Descent, has been open source for about 15 years. I have four different source ports on my system right now (d1x, rebirth, retro, and d2x-xl) each of which is free to download, install, run, and even modify. But some of the game assets (textures, ship polymodels) are not free; you must buy a copy of the game  to acquire a license to those asset files, or play using only the shareware assets .
 http://www.gog.com/game/descent_1_descent_2 or http://steamcommunity.com/app/273570
 prepackaged with the rebirth/retro ports at http://descendentstudios.com/community/topic/1167-descent-sh... , where they're being used as a marketing tool for the currently-being-kickstarted Descent:Underground game at https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/descendentstudios/desce...
The same situation happens with Doom and Freedoom, but the existence or not of Freedoom doesn't change whether the Doom engine itself is open source or free.
After all, people are free to run the Doom engine on Freedoom. People are also free to do the same for Descent, I assume. If the Descent license were to forbid running Descent on your own custom-made game assets, then it would not be open source nor free software.
Forbidding commercial use invalidates the Descent engine as being open source. The Doom engine does not have this restriction.
As RMS says, all Free Software is open source. I believe the converse statement to be true always or nearly always all the time. Though the licenses are the same, the guiding philosophies are different. Open Source tends to focus on the benefits of openness, such as quality resulting from many reviewers. By contrast, RMS and the Free software folks will tell you that quality isn't the primary aim--the 4 freedoms are.
In terms of licenses, Copyleft licenses are a subset of Free and Open Source licenses that restrict the ability to make derived works non-Free/Open. E.g. BSD is Free software, but not Copyleft.
I'm not saying this to be argumentative - I don't like the idea of something like that in the hands of a bureaucracy.
I took a quick look through https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22open+source... and I couldn't see the term being used in a software context before 1998.
They have a better UI than Debian/Ubuntu/whatever. They have better security features than both OS X and Linux. If they get the open source thing right, both OS X and Linux will (have to) improve as a direct result of that. Can't lose.
// Did I miss something?
> They have a better UI than Debian/Ubuntu/whatever.
They may beat out some linux distros but there are some VERY nice looking linux distros and OS X blows Windows UI out of the water.
> They have better security features than both OS X and Linux.
Oh, give me a minute to wipe the tears out of my eyes, that was a good one.
> If they get the open source thing right, both OS X and Linux will (have to) improve as a direct result of that. Can't lose.
I venture a guess that OS X has more open source contributions than Windows (or at least more contributions that I benefit from) but let's remember they said 'Definitely Possible' not 'Coming Tomorrow'. Linux has been open source from the start and OS X has deep roots in an open source OS as well. Why would OS X or Linux "have to" improve, open sourcing shit doesn't make it any less shitty....
> // Did I miss something?
Yes you missed a "/s" flag at the end of your post. Microsoft is not making Linux or OS X "look bad" it's finally doing what every other kid on the block has been doing for a while now. Let's not praise them for doing the right thing when they should have been doing the right thing all along...
I don't care how "nice looking" the distros are. I care about consistent, well though out design guidelines that users can rely on across many applications. And yes, OS X is better, hence they're not in the list.
They do have significantly better security features (that has been true for a while now). See my answer below for details.
Apple is one of the most secretive companies we have on this planet and I, a Apple user, am not happy about that. (Yann Lecun complained about this in a recent Facebook ad too.) All parts that matter are closed: Kernel stuff, device drivers, core libs/frameworks, the Swift compiler, etc.
Ignorance is bliss.
> They do have significantly better security features (that has been true for a while now). See my answer below for details.
You must still be responding to bigstumpy so I'll wait for that reply and respond in that thread.
> Apple is one of the most secretive companies we have on this planet and I, a Apple user, am not happy about that.
I hear that but I'm going to pick the best platform that let's me do my job best and for now (and for a while now) OS X has been that platform. I don't think I could ever go back to non-unixy OS (read: windows). I can survive on Linux (All of my code runs on Linux and I work with Linux servers) as a desktop OS but where it really shines IMHO is server OS's.
> All parts that matter are closed: Kernel stuff, device drivers, core libs/frameworks, the Swift compiler, etc.
As someone who would only care about the Swift compiler and possibly core libs/frameworks I guess this just doesn't bother me personally as much. I'd love if it was all OS for other people's benefit but it don't affect my day to day life really.
> Ignorance is bliss.
This is true but OS X let's me do my job better than Windows/Linux so call me ignorant cause development on OS X (for me) is bliss.
It's not just looks. Almost every Windows application has the same keyboard shortcuts. How many X-based Linux applications is that true for? Even classic command-line utils are wildly inconsistent (look at dd, for instance).
OS X has some great things about it but there is so much software that is only on Windows that I want to use that it ends up being hard to use other OSs for desktop (I've used both Linux and OS X for several years before coming back).
I don't use keyboard shortcuts as much as some people may but I've never experienced issues with hotkey differences between apps in OS X. The one's I use are always consistent.
> there is so much software that is only on Windows
I don't have this issue either. For every daily task I do I have a native OS X app that performs without issues (often looking better while doing it than their windows alternative/equivalent). There is 1 single windows app that I need to use 1-2 times a month that a vendor provides and I have a VirtualBox VM for that. I do understand that different sectors/professions will have different experiences but OS X does everything I need it to do and I've never felt restrained.
As far as your second point, I'm glad for you, but it wasn't my experience and I got really sick of jumping through hoops trying to emulate a Windows environment for various software that was not available in OS X.
I'm sorry but this just isn't true. I've used a MBP the last few years for my webdev work and spend most of my time in terminal, Chrome and ST3 avoiding the OSX interface whenever possible. Because the moment I open Finder and try to navigate, I wish I were using File Explorer instead.
Then I give a presentation, detach the HDMI cable, leaving my MBP screen unresponsive until I am forced to reboot, and I sigh.
Can you expand on what is so egregious about Finder? Also in terms of apps on each platform I don't think you can really make a point about Windows beating out OS X. On average I've found OS X apps to be leaps and bounds over Windows equivalents.
> Then I give a presentation, detach the HDMI cable, leaving my MBP screen unresponsive until I am forced to reboot, and I sigh.
I've used an HDMI cable at work with my Mac weekly if not more often and I've never had that issue. As well as my extra monitors (one runs on HDMI and the other on Thunderbolt).
Hm? The dmg files that you have to double-click on, manually drag into your app folder, then manually unmount from the desktop? Why do I still have to do all that busywork in 2015?
DMG files are a way to ship app bundles (or other files). They're basically images with compression and checksumming added on top (I think). Images are useful (compared to, say, a zip archive) because you can mount them (e.g., over a network). That's useful for all kinds of sysadmin-y things. (Compression and checksumming are obviously useful as well.)
The only thing I care about is the apps that I'm running on the OS. They're what I came to the computer for, not a purple or blue desktop.
I'm not saying my opinion is better than others. And I used to be smitten with all the little font, color and widget adjustments that Windows or Linux has. But I gradually found myself just not caring about all that, because they have nothing to do with what I want to do: work and play.
Just to be clear: Linux is doing fine. OS X is a hell of a lot worse.
I forgot to say what I actually wanted to say: I said security features, not overall security. Linux is FOSS.
> Microsoft's Windows Vista (released January 2007) and later have ASLR enabled for only those executables and dynamic link libraries specifically linked to be ASLR-enabled. For compatibility, it is not enabled by default for other applications. Typically, only older software is incompatible and ASLR can be fully enabled by editing a registry entry "HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management\MoveImages", or by installing Microsoft's Enhanced Mitigation Experience Toolkit.
> The locations of the heap, stack, Process Environment Block, and Thread Environment Block are also randomized. A security whitepaper from Symantec noted that ASLR in 32-bit Windows Vista may not be as robust as expected, and Microsoft has acknowledged a weakness in its implementation.
> Host-based intrusion prevention systems such as WehnTrust and Ozone also offer ASLR for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 operating systems. WehnTrust is open-source. Complete details of Ozone's implementation is not available.
> It was noted in February 2012 that ASLR on 32-bit Windows systems prior to Windows 8 can have its effectiveness reduced in low memory situations. Similar effect also had been achieved on Linux in the same research. The test code caused the Mac OS X 10.7.3 system to kernel panic, so it was left unclear about its ASLR behavior in this scenario.
> Mac OS X
> In Mac OS X Leopard 10.5 (released October 2007), Apple introduced randomization for system libraries.
> In Mac OS X Lion 10.7 (released July 2011), Apple expanded their implementation to cover all applications, stating "address space layout randomization (ASLR) has been improved for all applications. It is now available for 32-bit apps (as are heap memory protections), making 64-bit and 32-bit applications more resistant to attack."
> As of OS X Mountain Lion 10.8 (released July 2012) and later, the entire system including the kernel as well as kexts and zones are randomly relocated during system boot.
They all have ASLR, but the Windows implementation is supposed to be better than Linux' (even if it's just a little). Anyway, they're both better than Apple's. The details really do matter here.
By the way: Linux plays a very odd role here because it's also run on servers. Might be an unfair comparison.
You really shouldn't google for these things (for the same reason you shouldn't listen to me either). Having said that, this source seems alright: https://www.cert.org/blogs/certcc/post.cfm?EntryID=191
Make sure to have a look at the Reddit discussion as well.
Another good example for this is how /dev/urandom is implemented in Linux and FreeBSD/OS X. They both have it but it's not quite the same.
Also note that the reason MS invests more into security than Apple does is because of their painful history. Makes all the sense in the world, doesn't it?
Here's another one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_operating_system...
Note that Capsicum and SELinux aren't used that much (unfortunately). I don't know if Apple's sandbox is "inspired by" Capsicum. I also don't know why the MS sandbox isn't listed there. What's the feature called that gives each app it's own System32?
Found this but it's from 2011 so probably out of date: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/21/mac_os_x_lion_securi...
> Did I miss something?
An MS linux build, that supports .NET (CoreCLR) and a true cross platform windowing library (WPF) would be serious force to contend with in both the enterprise and consumer markets.
What would be the point? The NT kernel has a newer architecture than the Linux kernel and build upon Dave Cutler's experience with VMS (which could already benefit from learning from Unix).
Open sourcing the NT kernel does make a lot of sense though, since it would be easier to integrate Windows in Xen, KVM, and other virtualization infrastructure.
They will probably end up taking an Apple-like approach. Open bits where it is strategic and keep some bits closed to sell Windows licenses. It 'only' took a new CEO to do the rational thing.
It's a trade-off. Linux looks floppy architecturally because it can afford to be.
If you're interested in an open-source NT kernel, you might be interested in ReactOS. Although their target comprises development of the entire OS, their main task was the NT kernel and "the glue" with existing parts of Win32 sub-system developed by Wine.
- Windows sells because it works with every hardware device ever made. Linux does not even come close to that level of hardware support. There is no way those drivers will run on MS Linux kernel.
- None of Microsoft's top money making apps are built with .Net; Office, Visual Studio or Sql Server are mostly C++. So it isn't as easy as porting .Net over to Linux.
- Windows Driver development tooling is way ahead of Linux. So while we all love Linux, throwing away the entire Windows kernel is a bad idea.
- The Windows NT kernel is not an awkward piece of engineering. While different from the *nix, it is actually quite respectable.
- Add: MS mobile device strategy too is based on the NT kernel. They are not going to be an Android theme.
What they really wanna do is make windows more text-shell friendly, and perhaps Open Source the NT kernel. But more than anything else, I just want Microsoft to switch sides when it comes to Patents and IP extortion.
In my own experience on over a dozen computers since 2000 when I started to get serious about Linux and especially the past 7 to 8 years...Linux driver support exceeds Windows.
With windows, its likely the base OS may not even be able to install on a piece of hardware without a driver update CD, but the driver support is fantastic. Its possible to run XP on a lot of modern hardware because companies like nvidia continue to make drivers for XP. That is not possible with any linux distribution from that time frame.
The opposite also exists, I have a baytrail tablet I picked up over Christmas. It runs win8.1 just fine, and will sort of boot the latest bleeding edge ubuntu, but the wifi still doesn't work (as of a couple weeks ago), nor does the SD controller, and a few other things are suboptimal.
There are also whole product lines that still don't work in linux (see the USB3 displaylink based products) even years after their initial release.
Plus, linux tends to put users in a sticky situation. For example at work I have a fairly recent intel based platform, that doesn't work 100% in the older (still supported) SLES environment we use by default. That is because the drivers need to be backported by SUSE and they aren't exactly on the ball about it (same thing for the LTS releases of ubuntu).
I'm a pretty strong believer that linux needs to decouple the drivers from the core kernel. I don't necessarily want to upgrade my whole OS platform just because I got a new piece of hardware. This is especially true on stable platforms. Thankfully companies like emulex do a good job of providing two dozen different drivers for different versions of linux. They and a few other companies are the exception not the rule.
There was an article here a few months ago about 5 (?) new innovative operating systems that have security in mind. One was MirageOS and there was another one I liked - something about resource starvation - but I can't remember the name now.
There's also the Ethos OS, that comes with the "encrypted by default" MinimaLT networking stack, and so on.
I'd be much more excited about a "new" Windows that's open source and is truly built for the 21st century with (cyber-) security in mind, than just dumping the old Windows onto the Linux kernel (and I bet they won't even bother to implement grsec in that, if they do it, because it's yet another patched-up solution for an unsecure kernel, that breaks a lot of stuff).
It would also be lovely if this new kernel was built with Rust or some other type-safe language.
An Open Source reimplementation of Windows
PowerShell, for Mono.
More from the project page:
Alpha. This project is useful in certain constrained
applications, e.g. the NuGet Console in Xamarin Studio.
> PowerShell provides direct access to [nearly?] the entire Windows OS
PS has access to the .NET Framework which abstracts the OS APIs, not really to Windows directly.
There's also chatter that MS is already working on porting PowerShell to CoreCLR/.NET Core (the cross-plat, open-source version of .NET).
It's a bit of a Turing tarpit when it comes to non-inherency.
1. PowerShell reimplements older commands as aliases, e.g. ls is an alias for Get-ChildItem. You'd not be relying on existing shell functionality.
2. I don't know much about it, but wouldn't the upcoming Linux IPC improvements being made to support kdbus do away with needing to handle message passing in the way you describe?
Perhaps my logic is off, or my view is missing key information, but from my novice perspective it seems to make sense.
If you're interested, this page has more information on the type system used in dbus: http://dbus.freedesktop.org/doc/dbus-specification.html#type...
Microsoft has been integrating interprocess communication into Windows since DDE in version 2.0 almost 30 years ago. Then more than a decade of OLE. Then more than a decade of .NET. At this point it and the reflection it enables are baked into the toolchain and pretty much comes along for free on a project. *nix has many advantages but everybody rowing in the same direction is not among them.
They will never give up a kernel architecture that is more modern and that is not tainted (from their perspective) by the GPL.
Sure, if you are already committed to Windows then that makes sense. But if you are starting fresh then you don't choose Windows, and that is the dilemma MS is facing.
And in the case that people find innovative uses for windows - hey - pay up.
Possibility and probability are two completely different things.
We've heard these vaporware statements from Microsoft in the past. I'm used to them. I guess they're starting them up again.
As a reminder, "open source" doesn't mean free, in case anyone goes off on that tangent.
As a reminder, yes it does:
I don't know where people got the idea that open source is not a synonym for free software. It was always meant to be a synonym.
I'm sure Microsoft understands what open source means, because they don't call their source-visible licenses "open source". "Shared source" is the term they invented for their non-free, source-visible licenses. If they are talking about open source in an article, I do think they really do mean open source.
I relate this narcissistic tale in the hopes that it encourages others to actually read your argument.
Probably from rms himself.
“Free software.” “Open source.” If it's the same software, does it
matter which name you use?
I don't get why this has to be downvoted.
The problem for Windows seems to be that it has trouble leaving the desktop and its particular server market. Windows-based mobile devices are struggling, and pricing/enforcing Windows licenses for IoT devices would be a tough problem. Pay for a Windows 10 license for a Raspberry Pi? I don't see that as a mass market either.