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

51–60 of 75 posts

Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

#51

Post by dTal »

8draco8 wrote: post #39
hungerstrike wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah nobody wants Windows. That's why they only have like 90% of the desktop OS market share. Windows 10 alone has roughly 10 times more users than the Macintosh OS or Linux.

90% market share is a sum of marketing, good enough product 30 years ago, backwards compatibility and user habits. Many users, especially those living in browser, don't care about OS, they are perfectly fine on Ubuntu but they either don't know that there is something else than Windows or they are afraid of trying something new. I am talking here about majority of computer users not tech savvy crowd visiting HN.

At this point I think it's largely a lack of viable alternatives. Despite increasingly loud noises of complaint from Windows users, it remains the only reasonable thing for a vendor to preinstall on a computer. OSX only comes on (expensive) Macs, and they tried Linux on netbooks back in 2007 and it was a disaster (partly due to vendor fragmentation, partly due to marketing that papered over the whole "different OS" issue).

We so nearly had it with Ubuntu. I suspect sooner or later Google will pull it off in some form or another, if ChromeOS doesn't already count.

Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

#52

Post by cliffy »

d44m wrote: post #47
8draco8 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

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.

Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

#53

Post by 8draco8 »

dTal wrote: post #51
8draco8 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

90% market share is a sum of marketing, good enough product 30 years ago, backwards compatibility and user habits. Many users, especially those living in browser, don't care about OS, they are perfectly fine on Ubuntu but they either don't know that there is something else than Windows or they are afraid of trying something new. I am talking here about majority of computer users not tech savvy crowd visiting HN.

At this point I think it's largely a lack of viable alternatives. Despite increasingly loud noises of complaint from Windows users, it remains the only reasonable thing for a vendor to preinstall on a computer. OSX only comes on (expensive) Macs, and they tried Linux on netbooks back in 2007 and it was a disaster (partly due to vendor fragmentation, partly due to marketing that papered over the whole "different OS" i…

Linux on laptop is a big success but only for specific audience. Dell have a lot of sales with their XPS Developer Edition and Project Sputnik http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2017/01/dell-talk-linux-laptops-d...

Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

#54

Post by b4ux1t3 »

matz1 wrote: post #29
asfdsfggtfd wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're not alone. I'm of the mind that it doesn't matter what the license, state of the source, or whatever, I'm here to get things done, not quibble over trivialities and semantics. When I can see the source for something, I call it open source. If the OSI has a problem with that, I invite them to explain to me how my definition affects their goals in any way, shape, or form.

I like the OSI. I use a lot of stuff that they endorse. My 3D printer is OSI certified (or whatever the proper terminology is). But I use my printer to solve problems, and it being open or closed source doesn't really matter, so long as it helps me solve problems.

I like the FSF. I use a lot of stuff that they endorse. One of the operating systems I use is FSF certified (or whatever the proper terminology is). But I use this operating system to solve problems, and it being open or closed source doesn't really matter, as long as it helps me solve problems.

I like Microsoft. I use a lot of stuff that they make. One of the operating systems I use. . .you get the idea.

Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

#55

Post by auggierose »

yodsanklai wrote: post #44
auggierose wrote: post #10

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.

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.

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.

Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

#56

Post by yuhong »

pgeorgi wrote: post #49
yuhong wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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=...

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) th…

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.

Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

#57

Post by pgeorgi »

yuhong wrote: post #56
pgeorgi wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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) th…

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 tho…

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.

Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

#58

Post by asfdsfggtfd »

matz1 wrote: post #29
asfdsfggtfd wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Lots of people get technical language wrong much the time. This is fine. Normally one does not correct heavily because one is polite. When one hears someone starting to spread the mistake one feels a duty to correct to prevent further misinformation. This is tedious but still fine.

What is not fine is when the person using the technical language wrong starts explaining that their ignorance is better than other peoples' knowledge.

Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

#59

Post by asfdsfggtfd »

b4ux1t3 wrote: post #26
Vendan wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> This is largely a subjective matter,

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

Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

#60

Post by b4ux1t3 »

asfdsfggtfd wrote: post #59
b4ux1t3 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> This is largely a subjective matter, It just isn't subjective. "Open Source" is a technical term with a clear well understood meaning.

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.

Post reply on HN