3 ms·
The point is that Windows was never open. Open platforms like Linux now exist. Something controlled by one corporation and built under a proprietary license can
by massysett 11y ago
The point is that Windows was never open. Open platforms like Linux now exist. Something controlled by one corporation and built under a proprietary license cannot be open even if they allow users to install stuff without an app store.
- Strom 11y agoYou're arguing semantics. Windows definitely isn't open the way GNU wants things to be open. It may not be open like you define open. However Windows does have some open properties [1] that are at risk of being taken away. When we say open in this context, we mean those properties, not that Windows is licenced under GPL 3. [1] The primary open property in question is the ability to build, distribute & run apps on Windows without even notifying Microsoft. The opposite of a walled garden.
- AimHere 11y agoPlease use the same terminology as everyone else. Windows has always been an open platform (that is anyone can write and publish software for it without being coerced into some sort of a contractual relationship with a third party). This is in direct contrast to iOS, say, where if you want to publish an app, Apple gets to be your distributor and your curator. Sweeney is alleging that Microsoft' current tactics are intended to stop Windows being an open platform, which, if true, will be very jarring for a lot of users and developers. Windows has never been open source software. That's a discussion for another time.