Windows goes Open Source?!!

[TaoPhoenix]

I like to sometimes borrow things from Arizona Hot's Interesting Stuff, which I feel deserve a more complex discussion.

This is up there for one of the most confusing topics I have ever heard!



"Played Straight Man"
"Windows May Go Open Source"
Stem article:
http://www.techtimes...lopers-consumers.htm

Leadoff suspicious sounding products of fish factory (may include herrings, at least one of which is red)
Prologue: Bias inducing remark:
"Microsoft – set to release Windows 10 later this year – is firmly established as the king of software. In spite of this, the company is open to change: Windows could soon become open source."

Uh ... that's not the least of why I made this a thread! I'll leave that one alone for now!

1.
"The move means that Microsoft would essentially be giving away Windows for free. However – and perhaps more importantly – the tech community would have access to all the code for Windows, being able to change it, modify it and essentially create unique versions of it."

This is a "rosy" passage - MS still makes Windows, "plebes" finally get to whack it open legally and see *all of it* ... up until ... you just know there's a weasel move in there somewhere. Or several. Microsoft gets to make a lot of moves.

2.
(Lots of barely intelligible filler goes here.)
Also left alone for now. I'm starting this post off trying to jam a thumbtack on a couple of the really hot-button items.

3.
"Despite these advantages, it's difficult to imagine that Windows will become totally open source anytime soon. What seems more likely is that Microsoft will release portions of the operating system, enabling faster development of its features, and also offering a faster responsiveness to developer feedback and suggestions."

Aha! There's at least a couple of the varmints! I am *definitely* pointing out the nice change of position within a couple hundred words of story! Let's say it with More Drama so we can see it!

"the company is open to change: Windows could soon become open source ... The move means that ...the tech community would have access to all the code for Windows...(but) it's difficult to imagine that Windows will become totally open source anytime soon. What seems more likely is that Microsoft will release portions of the operating system ... Only time will tell if Windows does indeed become an open-source operating system — but the future of the operating system is certainly exhilarating."

Nice taking away the football, Lucy.

[MilesAhead]

I'll believe it when I see it.  For one thing people could look at the code for the File Explorer.  I bet there are modules going back to Win95.  It would be rather embarrassing.  I think the press releases with "would could should might may" wording are picked up because W10 is on the horizon.  Otherwise the tech reporter would say "Great.  Call me when it is open source.  Don't call to tell me what you think you might do until you change your mind."

[wraith808]

I'll believe it when I see it.  For one thing people could look at the code for the File Explorer.  I bet there are modules going back to Win95.  It would be rather embarrassing.  I think the press releases with "would could should might may" wording are picked up because W10 is on the horizon.  Otherwise the tech reporter would say "Great.  Call me when it is open source.  Don't call to tell me what you think you might do until you change your mind."

-MilesAhead (April 05, 2015, 10:42 AM)

People said the same thing about .NET.

[MilesAhead]

People said the same thing about .NET.

-wraith808 (April 05, 2015, 11:18 AM)

One difference.  .NET was documented.  To program Windows using the API without being left behind you had to get "undocumented Windows" programming books.  Some guy had to sit there for months debugging the OS to see what MS did when they wrote their own programs that they didn't tell us.

It's hard to believe a company that didn't want to document the Programmer's API calls would open up the source to the whole enchilada.  But if I see it I'll believe it.  But if they are really going open source do they have to do these trial balloons?  Like if people react with "so what?" they won't but if people say "oh wow!" they will?  Strange business.

[wraith808]

People said the same thing about .NET.

-wraith808 (April 05, 2015, 11:18 AM)

One difference.  .NET was documented.  To program Windows using the API without being left behind you had to get "undocumented Windows" programming books.  Some guy had to sit there for months debugging the OS to see what MS did when they wrote their own programs that they didn't tell us.

It's hard to believe a company that didn't want to document the Programmer's API calls would open up the source to the whole enchilada.  But if I see it I'll believe it.  But if they are really going open source do they have to do these trial balloons?  Like if people react with "so what?" they won't but if people say "oh wow!" they will?  Strange business.

-MilesAhead (April 05, 2015, 03:11 PM)

But as you notice with .NET, the parts that were open sourced where the most recent version.  They didn't just open up everything back to 1.0.

Projects under the stewardship of the .NET Foundation currently include the .NET Compiler Platform ("Roslyn") as well as the ASP.NET family of projects, both of which were open sourced by Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc. (MS Open Tech). Xamarin has contributed several open source .NET projects, including the very popular Mailkit and Mimekit projects.

I expect to see the same thing with Windows.  You aren't going to get everything just dumped out there.  They'll package it, and slice it up.  I don't see it as any less far-fetched than the idea that .NET would go open source.  They've seen the future, finally, and realize that selling the OS is no longer the way to stay on top, and causes them more problems in the long run, it seems.

But time will tell.

[TaoPhoenix]

I want to add the whole new angle that whenever they quit playing games "slicing and packaging", and certify something as the complete OS, that enters the whole other discussion about NSA backdoors and stuff. Because as long as Windows is Mystery Meat, anything could be in there.

But if it's ever "bit certified", then even if the govts have their back doors, it instead becomes an "intelligence test" to see if the govts can *fool us* with the source right here. It can still happen, but we have some pretty good guys on "our side", so with a wry wink and nod to reality shows, if you put together an "emergency task force" of our "50 best", with a great spread of overlapping specialties, vs the agencies, I bet we could find a back door if it was in there.

[Jibz]

Apparently all based on Mark Russinovich saying at a conference that “It’s definitely possible”.

http://www.forbes.co...e-microsoft-windows/

[wraith808]

Apparently all based on Mark Russinovich saying at a conference that “It’s definitely possible”.

http://www.forbes.co...e-microsoft-windows/

-Jibz (April 06, 2015, 01:36 AM)

Well, nevermind then.  I hate when I get duped by stuff like that.

[f0dder]

One difference.  .NET was documented.  To program Windows using the API without being left behind you had to get "undocumented Windows" programming books.  Some guy had to sit there for months debugging the OS to see what MS did when they wrote their own programs that they didn't tell us.

-MilesAhead (April 05, 2015, 03:11 PM)

Sorry, but that's bullshit.

Yes, you needed reversed engineering if you wanted to do Really Funky Things - but you never (Win95+, anyway) needed it for normal application programming. The "undocumented Windows" was for people who wanted to do nice applications for the tweaker types who thought they knew what they were doing, for some of the antivirus people, and for (some of) the people who removed copy protections for the enjoyment of y'all.

[TaoPhoenix]

Apparently all based on Mark Russinovich saying at a conference that “It’s definitely possible”.

http://www.forbes.co...e-microsoft-windows/

-Jibz (April 06, 2015, 01:36 AM)

Well, I need to make lists of "intelligent tech news". Mark R. is very bright - I have no problem with his conference remarks. You can remark anything you like.

It's the TechTimes that first visited the Fish Factory.

Then Forbes also visited the Fish Factory, and found a different breed of herring!

"In some ways Russinovich is being modest. ... So what is the sensible answer to making Windows open source?

It’s very simple: What Complete Madness!

Why? The number one reason is security. Being a closed platform, holes in Windows take time to discover. In fact some of the biggest lie unspotted for years which can lead to panic when they are revealed."

Uh... so ... prepare the "Ultimate Windows Cleanup Expedition", and then "once and for all" put the eyes of the world on Windows! Quit championing security through obscurity like it's anything more than a cheap band aid!



If push really came to shove, you'd need a Snowden Grade Martyr to grab the code and powerslam the net with it a' la' Johnny Mnemonic. Who cares what level offense it is. If you have over a million copies running in the wild, it will be loose forever.