5 ms·

To state the obvious: Windows 7 is the predecessor of Windows 10. So open-sourcing Windows 7 is effectively open-sourcing Windows 10. I'd be very surprised if

To state the obvious: Windows 7 is the predecessor of Windows 10. So open-sourcing Windows 7 is effectively open-sourcing Windows 10. I'd be very surprised if Windows 10 had no code from Windows 7. I'd also be surprised if Microsoft actually owns all the code/assets in Windows. Licensing is a thing. Open-sourcing Windows 10 as a "current" product is requesting the source to everything Windows. That is a big ask. It would have to fit into a core strategic change for Microsoft. Microsoft has likely got plans of its own to embrace and absorb Linux. Why should I as a Big Corporate with full licenses be forced to maintain separate Linux machines? Why can't Enterprise natively run Linux binaries? WSL is part of the answer to those questions but I'm fairly sure Microsoft has bigger plans. Who says they won't simply pivot and make Windows run on their own flavor of Linux or a defined distribution? Sounds crazy but... stranger things have happened and licensing is a real money maker. The ability to lock people to Windows is still very lucrative however. For the foreseeable future they are much more likely to run Linux on Windows and keep their existing control. I seriously doubt Windows 7 will be open-sourced while Windows 10 remains closed-source.

sixothree 7y ago
Microsoft has made a point to re-develop closed-source projects in an open manner. The entire dotnet framework, multiple languages, WSL, even the terminal. I think a more appropriate ask would be to "please re-develop X technology in an open manner".
chooseaname 7y ago
> Who says they won't simply pivot and make Windows run on their own flavor of Linux or a defined distribution? Sounds crazy but... I don't think it sounds crazy at all. I've had the same feeling since WSL was released. And that feeling has gotten stronger since they showed of the Duo.
- ChrisSD 7y ago
  They could, but why? Microsoft already has a kernel. It works for them. If they did pivot to Linux, they'd still need to support NT for a long time to come. They'd also need to write a win32 layer for Linux (WINE, as it is, wouldn't be enough) as well as compatibility shims for Windows drivers, etc. And after they'd done all this work, while still supporting the NT kernel, what have they gained? Little that can't be done already. More likely is that they continue to port .NET and/or UWP so applications built with those technologies will be cross platform. This may eventually mean they no longer need Windows but could maintain a Microsoft branded Linux distro. But that wouldn't be "Windows" by any sensible definition of the term.
  - Someone1234 7y ago
    The NT kernel itself has fallen from one of the best kernels technologically to significantly behind Linux. The design is still solid, but after tens of years of under-investment and little internal political willingness to make substantial improvement (they're a very conservative company at heart) it has just been allowed to rot. I think WSL (V1 and V2) has been showcasing just how bad it has become. From locking issues, to small file performance, to scheduler problems, and beyond. Everyone said Microsoft would never dump the Trident rendering engine either (used in IE/Edge/WebUI Controls). And that was true, until it wasn't. They may not move to Linux tomorrow, but ten years from now as NT continues to get little love, and Linux sails ahead? We'll see...
    - sfgweilr4f 7y ago
      Windows on Linux is completely possible. But... not yet.
      - sfgweilr4f 7y ago
        It IS possible. Anyone saying otherwise is asserting Microsoft have no experience in writing OS at all and that is absurd. The only sticking point is corporate strategy - for which I currently see no evidence. But possible. Wine shows it is possible.
raxxorrax 7y ago
> I'd be very surprised if Windows 10 had no code from Windows 7 I don't know about your version of Windows, but mine looks like a resurrected zombie since Windows 95/98. That said, parts of Windows 10 were leaked, and I believe Windows XP? was leaked before too.
- sfgweilr4f 7y ago
  Leaks don't generally count as open-source due to their unreliable license from the Jolly Roger Foundation. Such licenses for NeW WiNdOwS generally attract the robust negotiation skills of various incentivized individuals wearing suits that cost more than most people's first cars. Again, licensing is too important to Microsoft, let alone every other reason, eg copyright/trademarks. They'd hunt you down then Cease & Desist your business / identity back to the foolish-ideas stage or worse.

sixothree 7y ago

Microsoft has made a point to re-develop closed-source projects in an open manner. The entire dotnet framework, multiple languages, WSL, even the terminal. I think a more appropriate ask would be to "please re-develop X technology in an open manner".

chooseaname 7y ago

> Who says they won't simply pivot and make Windows run on their own flavor of Linux or a defined distribution? Sounds crazy but... I don't think it sounds crazy at all. I've had the same feeling since WSL was released. And that feeling has gotten stronger since they showed of the Duo.

ChrisSD 7y ago
They could, but why? Microsoft already has a kernel. It works for them. If they did pivot to Linux, they'd still need to support NT for a long time to come. They'd also need to write a win32 layer for Linux (WINE, as it is, wouldn't be enough) as well as compatibility shims for Windows drivers, etc. And after they'd done all this work, while still supporting the NT kernel, what have they gained? Little that can't be done already. More likely is that they continue to port .NET and/or UWP so applications built with those technologies will be cross platform. This may eventually mean they no longer need Windows but could maintain a Microsoft branded Linux distro. But that wouldn't be "Windows" by any sensible definition of the term.
- Someone1234 7y ago
  The NT kernel itself has fallen from one of the best kernels technologically to significantly behind Linux. The design is still solid, but after tens of years of under-investment and little internal political willingness to make substantial improvement (they're a very conservative company at heart) it has just been allowed to rot. I think WSL (V1 and V2) has been showcasing just how bad it has become. From locking issues, to small file performance, to scheduler problems, and beyond. Everyone said Microsoft would never dump the Trident rendering engine either (used in IE/Edge/WebUI Controls). And that was true, until it wasn't. They may not move to Linux tomorrow, but ten years from now as NT continues to get little love, and Linux sails ahead? We'll see...
  - sfgweilr4f 7y ago
    Windows on Linux is completely possible. But... not yet.
    - sfgweilr4f 7y ago
      It IS possible. Anyone saying otherwise is asserting Microsoft have no experience in writing OS at all and that is absurd. The only sticking point is corporate strategy - for which I currently see no evidence. But possible. Wine shows it is possible.

raxxorrax 7y ago

> I'd be very surprised if Windows 10 had no code from Windows 7 I don't know about your version of Windows, but mine looks like a resurrected zombie since Windows 95/98. That said, parts of Windows 10 were leaked, and I believe Windows XP? was leaked before too.

sfgweilr4f 7y ago
Leaks don't generally count as open-source due to their unreliable license from the Jolly Roger Foundation. Such licenses for NeW WiNdOwS generally attract the robust negotiation skills of various incentivized individuals wearing suits that cost more than most people's first cars. Again, licensing is too important to Microsoft, let alone every other reason, eg copyright/trademarks. They'd hunt you down then Cease & Desist your business / identity back to the foolish-ideas stage or worse.