4 ms·

Yes, that's the common excuse/reason. But, why MS can't negotiate the move with those 3rd parties? That would be a good PR for them as well.

by zerr 7y ago

acidictadpole 7y ago
Because it turns from "Microsoft has nothing to lose by doing this" to "Microsoft is going to lose a bunch of money spending time negotiating with and paying third parties to be allowed to release their libraries with windows' source code". People's time isn't free.
- luma 7y ago
  And that's presuming that the entities that held the original license still exist today. It's a morass that can be nearly impossible to dig your way out of after 10+ years.
  - Lx1oG-AWb6h_ZG0 7y ago
    It’s actually 35+ years, Windows 1.0 was released in 1985, and I don’t doubt that some (much) older DOS code still exists in one form or the other in their repo. The other problem is open sourcing the Windows code would be also involve open sourcing its crazy huge build system and tooling — it’s not a simple makefile — which is probably another level of impractical.
    - Someone1234 7y ago
      Likely true. They were able to get rid of a lot of Windows 1.0/Dos back-compat junk with the release of x64 (due to loss of native 16 bit support). I'm sure there's still some though.
      - tjalfi 7y ago
        Windows 10 32bit is still around and supports 16bit applications. My employer uses 32bit VDIs to run a few legacy applications.
        Someone1234 7y ago
        I wonder how long they will support 32x Windows 10? I don't think they've announced an end-of-life, but it has to be at least on the books. It must be pretty expensive to port/test all of their patches/updates on something few use [0.70% per [0]). They already killed it on their server line (although it was silly on there with the low memory limits). Nvidia has already announced they're ending support[1]. [0] https://www.pcbenchmarks.net/os-marketshare.html https://www.pcbenchmarks.net/os-marketshare.html [1] https://www.extremetech.com/computing/267180-nvidia-ends-support-for-32-bit-operating-systems https://www.extremetech.com/computing/267180-nvidia-ends-sup...
        tjalfi 7y ago
        I don't think the numbers from PerformanceTest accurately reflect the usage of 32bit Windows 10. I find it difficult to believe that Microsoft would keep Windows 10 x86 around if usage was really that low. Backblaze found that about 4.5% of their customers use 32bit Windows in 2017[0]. [0] https://www.backblaze.com/blog/64-bit-os-vs-32-bit-os/ https://www.backblaze.com/blog/64-bit-os-vs-32-bit-os/
        cr0sh 7y ago
        > I wonder how long they will support 32x Windows 10? I noted in another comment that they have a similar problem with people wanting VB6 open sourced, because so many businesses rely on VB6 apps - some written internally or exclusively for their business. Windows 10 (from what I remember) almost didn't support VB6, but in the end they included the runtime DLL to allow for the apps to work. I wonder if this is a part of the 32x thing? Seems a likely possibility... VB6 and the companies relying on it might be an albatross around Microsoft's neck; for how much longer, I'm not sure.
scythe 7y ago
Now, instead of paying engineers to write code, you can pay lawyers to have arguments.
Zhyl 7y ago
Probably because that wouldn't be straightforward. You'll have every situation from missing licences, licences for old companies that don't exist anymore but whose IP has been absorbed by a patent troll, companies who refuse to be negotiated with, companies who will take the opportunity to file suit to repay the incalculable harm to their bottom line (despite not knowing their software was in Windows for 20+ years), companies who would be up for negotiation but don't have the momentum or enough of a grip to see negotiations through without collapsing or trailing off. And this is if Microsoft DID want to open source it, which if they were giving in to a demand from FSF, or trying to do it as part of a goodwill "Microsoft <3 Linux" initiative then you will quickly find that the costs far outweight the benefits.
thrower123 7y ago
I'm almost certain that it would drift into the same landmines of uncertain copyright and derelict ownership that plagues attempts to revive old abandonware games.
scarface74 7y ago
Good PR how? Most of the world wouldn’t care either way.
ryandrake 7y ago
Or, why can't they just open source the pieces that they do own? When you open source something, it's nice if it compiles right away but not strictly required. There are probably lots of other reasons that MS won't open source an older version of their flagship product, but this "OMG licensed 3rd party code" excuse is overplayed (by lots of other companies, too) and needs to die.
- UncleMeat 7y ago
  People would lose their shit if it was just an unbuildable pipe of code. “This doesn’t count”.

Yes, that's the common excuse/reason. But, why MS can't negotiate the move with those 3rd parties? That would be a good PR for them as well.

by zerr 7y ago

Yes, that's the common excuse/reason. But, why MS can't negotiate the move with those 3rd parties? That would be a good PR for them as well.

acidictadpole 7y ago

Because it turns from "Microsoft has nothing to lose by doing this" to "Microsoft is going to lose a bunch of money spending time negotiating with and paying third parties to be allowed to release their libraries with windows' source code". People's time isn't free.

luma 7y ago
And that's presuming that the entities that held the original license still exist today. It's a morass that can be nearly impossible to dig your way out of after 10+ years.
- Lx1oG-AWb6h_ZG0 7y ago
  It’s actually 35+ years, Windows 1.0 was released in 1985, and I don’t doubt that some (much) older DOS code still exists in one form or the other in their repo. The other problem is open sourcing the Windows code would be also involve open sourcing its crazy huge build system and tooling — it’s not a simple makefile — which is probably another level of impractical.
  - Someone1234 7y ago
    Likely true. They were able to get rid of a lot of Windows 1.0/Dos back-compat junk with the release of x64 (due to loss of native 16 bit support). I'm sure there's still some though.
    - tjalfi 7y ago
      Windows 10 32bit is still around and supports 16bit applications. My employer uses 32bit VDIs to run a few legacy applications.
      - Someone1234 7y ago
        I wonder how long they will support 32x Windows 10? I don't think they've announced an end-of-life, but it has to be at least on the books. It must be pretty expensive to port/test all of their patches/updates on something few use [0.70% per [0]). They already killed it on their server line (although it was silly on there with the low memory limits). Nvidia has already announced they're ending support[1]. [0] https://www.pcbenchmarks.net/os-marketshare.html https://www.pcbenchmarks.net/os-marketshare.html [1] https://www.extremetech.com/computing/267180-nvidia-ends-support-for-32-bit-operating-systems https://www.extremetech.com/computing/267180-nvidia-ends-sup...
        tjalfi 7y ago
        I don't think the numbers from PerformanceTest accurately reflect the usage of 32bit Windows 10. I find it difficult to believe that Microsoft would keep Windows 10 x86 around if usage was really that low. Backblaze found that about 4.5% of their customers use 32bit Windows in 2017[0]. [0] https://www.backblaze.com/blog/64-bit-os-vs-32-bit-os/ https://www.backblaze.com/blog/64-bit-os-vs-32-bit-os/
        cr0sh 7y ago
        > I wonder how long they will support 32x Windows 10? I noted in another comment that they have a similar problem with people wanting VB6 open sourced, because so many businesses rely on VB6 apps - some written internally or exclusively for their business. Windows 10 (from what I remember) almost didn't support VB6, but in the end they included the runtime DLL to allow for the apps to work. I wonder if this is a part of the 32x thing? Seems a likely possibility... VB6 and the companies relying on it might be an albatross around Microsoft's neck; for how much longer, I'm not sure.

scythe 7y ago

Now, instead of paying engineers to write code, you can pay lawyers to have arguments.

Zhyl 7y ago

Probably because that wouldn't be straightforward. You'll have every situation from missing licences, licences for old companies that don't exist anymore but whose IP has been absorbed by a patent troll, companies who refuse to be negotiated with, companies who will take the opportunity to file suit to repay the incalculable harm to their bottom line (despite not knowing their software was in Windows for 20+ years), companies who would be up for negotiation but don't have the momentum or enough of a grip to see negotiations through without collapsing or trailing off. And this is if Microsoft DID want to open source it, which if they were giving in to a demand from FSF, or trying to do it as part of a goodwill "Microsoft <3 Linux" initiative then you will quickly find that the costs far outweight the benefits.

thrower123 7y ago

I'm almost certain that it would drift into the same landmines of uncertain copyright and derelict ownership that plagues attempts to revive old abandonware games.

scarface74 7y ago

Good PR how? Most of the world wouldn’t care either way.

ryandrake 7y ago

Or, why can't they just open source the pieces that they do own? When you open source something, it's nice if it compiles right away but not strictly required. There are probably lots of other reasons that MS won't open source an older version of their flagship product, but this "OMG licensed 3rd party code" excuse is overplayed (by lots of other companies, too) and needs to die.

UncleMeat 7y ago
People would lose their shit if it was just an unbuildable pipe of code. “This doesn’t count”.