Seems like there are some good arguments here for making Windows free (as in beer) but open source? I don't get it.
An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source
21–30 of 75 posts
Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
"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.
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. You are referring to "source available". Please stop conflating the two.
Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
An abundance of reasons for why rms was right when he penned: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
The longer I go in computing, the more I see that Stallman was, and is right. Last month, I joined the FSF. I find that great parts of my livelihood are thanks in part to his efforts in computing, law, and rights.
I disagree. The majority of money that generated the electronic boom were from defense spending. I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I personally don't find what he is doing to be effective in a sense larger than the personal interest of a user of a device that wouldn't exist if it weren't for the nuclear state. I mean to say, is Raytheon's freedom to use a compiler as important as individual freedom? There are some logical gaps there to me. I can see where people would disagree with me, and I personally like the man. I've met him...it's a weird story, but I think he's a really cool person. I just don't necessarily agree with him.
Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 licen…
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.
I'm just going off of what I hear vocal "FOSS" advocates screaming at me on online forums. They tell anyone and everyone, loudly, that licenses are terrible, but at least some are decent, and that if I can't do what I want, it's not free software, even if it's open source.
Turns out opensource.org disagrees with them. But it doesn't seem like FSF (or rather, RMS, and the FSF by proxy) agrees[1].
In the end, I don't really have a horse in this race. I just write code. I don't care how my company's legal department chooses to protect it.
Frankly, I find it kind of tiresome that there's such a big argument over this stuff.
[1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source
#25Seems like there are some good arguments here for making Windows free (as in beer) but open source? I don't get it.
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.
Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.
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 . You are referring to "source available". Please stop conflating the two.
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.
Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'm just going off of what I hear vocal "FOSS" advocates screaming at me on online forums. They tell anyone and everyone, loudly, that licenses are terrible, but at least some are decent, and that if I can't do what I want, it's not free software, even if it's open source. Turns out opensource.org disagrees with them. But it doesn't seem like FSF (or rather, RMS, and the FSF by proxy) agrees[1]. In the end, I don't r…
Here's an illustration:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.en.html
I manually went through each of the OSI licenses and compared them to the FSF's list a while back, and there were only a couple differences. I don't have time to dig them up right now, but they're largely the same.
We reject the term "open source" not because of the licensing, but because of the philosophy: it was created to explicitly ignore the ethical concerns (users' freedoms) and focus instead on a development methodology.
Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source
#28Seems like there are some good arguments here for making Windows free (as in beer) but open source? I don't get it.
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…
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.
Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 licen…
This post is almost completely wrong. You can indeed do what you like in the license (within the bounds of the law) but if it doesn't meet the OSI definition it is not Open Source.
No, when hear the term open source the first thing that come in mind is that the source is readable, thats it nothing else is implied. That being said, oher entities/organization might have their own definition. I'm sure there are many people who use the term open source like mine.
Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 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 pe…
> 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-...
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)