Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

justinkterry.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 75 posts

Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

#11

Post by occultist_throw »

Jedd wrote: post #7
Flimm wrote: post #3

> 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…

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.

Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

#12

Post by CrystalGamma »

b4ux1t3 wrote: post #8
Flimm wrote: post #3

> 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…

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.

Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

#13

Post by yuhong »

sevensor wrote: post #9

> 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.

The fun thing is how much code can be used from Windows in Wine.

Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

#14

Post by b4ux1t3 »

sevensor wrote: post #9

> 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.

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 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.

Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

#15

Post by drdaeman »

b4ux1t3 wrote: post #14
sevensor wrote: post #9

> 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.

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-...

Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

#16

Post by geocar »

b4ux1t3 wrote: post #8
Flimm wrote: post #3

> 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…

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…

> Open source does not mean you are free to distribute the code, necessarily

The Open Source Definition[1] has defined the term "open source" since the late 1990s to mean exactly this.

The term "Open" refers to open-membership (for contributions), and not transparency.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition

> 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.

You can, but this doesn't meet the Open Source Definition, so you might be infringing on their trademark if you were to call that an Open Source License.

Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

#17

Post by asfdsfggtfd »

b4ux1t3 wrote: post #8
Flimm wrote: post #3

> 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…

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.

Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

#18

Post by bfred_it »

CrystalGamma wrote: post #12
b4ux1t3 wrote: post #8

Earlier 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.

"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.

Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

#19

Post by b4ux1t3 »

drdaeman wrote: post #15
b4ux1t3 wrote: post #14

Earlier 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-...

That's interesting. I didn't actually know that, I figured there'd be some kind of shim in place to make it work. Incidentally, this doesn't mean that Wine runs 16-bit Windows programs particularly well. I did a bit of quick research, and it turns out you need to jump through some hoops to run 16-bit on Wine.[1]

I maintain that Windows is always a better choice for running win32 applications, unless you don't have that option. I'll also note that I'm not saying Wine is useless, or anything along those lines. I merely take issue with the idea that it runs win32 applications "better" than a system that's designed to be backwards compatible with win32 applications by the same entity that made win32.

[1]: https://askubuntu.com/a/308679

Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

#20

Post by bfred_it »

b4ux1t3 wrote: post #14
sevensor wrote: post #9

> 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.

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…

Yeah, ok, some. Microsoft didn't include a Windows XP VM in Win7 Pro for no reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Virtual_PC
Post reply on HN