7 ms·

Is it Time to Open Source Windows?

30 points by mjhea0 13y ago

cheery 13y ago
Nope, it's time to put it into rest.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jamesaguilar 13y ago
Doesn't really matter whether it is time or not since it is never going to happen.
astrowilliam 13y ago
Though I'd love to see this happen, it never will. The reason is that MSFT is driven and run not by engineers and programmers but by business people that would see this as a losing situation because every copy of Windows that they don't sell isn't $ in the MSFTs bank account. In other words, why would they give away something that they could sell. They can sell the OS as well as apps for the OS, it's a winning business model for them. Prime example, http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/22/windows-7-microsoft-profits-34-5/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/22/windows-7-microsoft-profits...
- sukuriant 13y ago
  Just a question, though I do work for MSFT as a disclosure: What does being an engineer/programmer have to do with selling something that I could give away? Do only business majors have garage sales instead of giving everything of theirs to Goodwill? Do only business majors create pies that they sell, rather than give away? What about authors and their works? Do only the business majors of that profession sell their things, rather than give them away for free on internet forums?
  - astrowilliam 13y ago
    As a developer myself, I can immediately see the excitement this would bring to the dev community. As a businessman as well, I can see how this will never happen. That's all I was implying.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - starter_john 13y ago
    Hi Sukuriant, As a developer, I share the concern that one's work has value and should not be 'given away'. But the reality is our work is a commodity, and a business can use and sell commodities in the most profitable competitive way. So this just means moving pieces around on the table a bit. You can still make money, and in fact save money and make more money by focusing on the true alignment with your customer that Microsoft is veering away from. From what I know of the Enterprise, new versions of Windows are a huge risk and expense, hardly the big picture alignment with the customer that a company should have. Does the Enterprise customer want to deal with a desktop Windows 8 rollout? Instead, borrow from the SaaS playbook by focusing on support and continuous releases instead of gigantic monolithic product releases that upend the universe and cause CTOs migraines around the globe. To replace Windows license revenue, simply "give away razors, sell blades" by replacing Windows license (contract) revenue with support (contract) revenue. The support is provided anyway, of course you don't tell Fortune 500 CTO to pound sand if there's a bug. So just change the game a bit. Make the same (or more) money. Go from being hated (UGH another windows upgrade) to loved (WHOO MSFT Open Sourced Windows! frees up budget for new Windows application development let's buy some SQL Server!) And in practical terms, here's what the invoice lineitem looks like (share with your boss??!?!) SKU-100 | $99/year | Enterprise-wide Guaranteed Bug Response 1 hour Turnaround / per user / annual subscription - Open Windows 2015
    - sukuriant 13y ago
      Microsoft's corporate strategy is well outside of my control or understanding. I only mentioned being a Microsoft employee because in conversations about my company, I have to tell people that I work for them. That said, I was speaking in the general sense, not in the specific sense of Microsoft
tdees40 13y ago
Um, the Windows division of MSFT brought in $19.2B of their $78B in total revenue. I'm no expert, but giving up 25% of your revenue is no way to run a company.
- topbanana 13y ago
  You could have said the same about Amazon before they launched Kindle
  - radmuzom 13y ago
    Amazon's core business is retail, not technology. I am excluding AWS, Mechanical Turk, etc. in this discussion. So selling the Kindle at a loss makes sense to them given that it will used by consumers to purchase retail goods (books, movies, music, etc. in the case of Kindle). Microsoft's core business is Windows - what would they sell if they give it away for free? Tetris?
  - bdcravens 13y ago
    What product was 25% of their revenue that they began giving away?
  - freehunter 13y ago
    How did Kindle lose money for Amazon? I'd imagine the money made from Kindle hardware plus the fact that ebooks are cheaper to stock and therefore have a much higher profit margin would be a gain for Amazon. Stocking a billion books isn't cheap like stocking a billion ebooks.
- riggins 13y ago
  Um, the Windows division of MSFT brought in $19.2B of their $78B in total revenue. Even more important, Windows brings in almost half of their operating profit. I'm going off the 2010 10-K, Windows was ~$12B of operating profit, MSFT Business Division (i.e. Office) was about $14B of operating profit ... out of $27B of total operating profit. As you would expect, the monopolies bring in the huge margins. The other stuff just earns a normal return on capital.
bencollier49 13y ago
I suspect that Windows is full of cross-licensed patents, or licensed code, which would make open-sourcing it fairly challenging. It would be super cool if it ever happened though.
kaolinite 13y ago
If Windows was open-sourced, it would end up even more of a mess for the average person. OEM's would customise and skin every last bit of it. It would become a monster.
- reidrac 13y ago
  Well, from the point of view of the user it is happening now. Just check all the crapware that comes "by default" with any Windows machine (Dell, I'm looking at you).
topbanana 13y ago
Maybe. They should definitely open source .net now though. They aren't showing it the love it deserves
- pionar 13y ago
  Really? Are you kidding? .NET as it stands, is way ahead of other virtual-machine environments. What are you basing this on?
radmuzom 13y ago
It's written by a author who has very little clue that Microsoft's primary customers are large enterprises, and not the "average consumer". "Users have embraced the productivity of simple and mobile… And there’s no going back!" - Does this even make sense? I work for a large bank with around 50,000 employees - and it is absolutely essential that we are provided with an operating system which is familiar, supported, stable and able to run the thousands of applications already being used internally. The company will never ever - at least in the next 50 to 100 years - switch from Windows simply because it does not make any business sense to do so and will come at an immense cost to shareholders. And let me add that I use a Windows 8 mobile, and it is one of the finest mobile operating system I have ever used. Apps run in 512MB RAM as smoothly as my wife's Android Sony Xperia which is almost four times as costly (and four times or more as powerful). I have never been satisfied more with an OS.
- smacktoward 13y ago
  In my experience enterprise customers tend (after a time lag of several years) to get dragged kicking and screaming into using whatever their employees use at home. Enterprise IT said time-shared mainframes were just fine. Employees bought their own PCs and liked them. Eventually enterprise IT was buying PCs. Enterprise IT said text-mode interfaces were just fine. Employees bought their own GUI systems and liked them. Eventually enterprise IT was buying GUI systems. Enterprise IT said desk phones were just fine for everyone (except top execs, of course). Employees bought their own cell phones and liked them. Eventually enterprise IT was buying cell phones. Enterprise IT said BlackBerries were just fine for everyone. Employees bought their own iPhones and liked them. Eventually enterprise IT was buying iPhones. Etc., etc., etc. Of course, the larger the enterprise the longer the time lag. But it's rare to see a business that planted its flag on "X is just fine" not eventually hauling that flag down.
  - radmuzom 13y ago
    Yes, but unlike most programmers, people (restricted to bank employees in my original example) 1. Love windows, even though they may use an Iphone. 2. Find it very productive to get work done. That is because it IS a brilliant operating system for all categories of users (including programmers). 3. Have jobs (a lot of them) because of Microsoft Office. As of today, there is simply no alternative - anyone who claims otherwise is lying or has an ulterior motive. And no one cares that you can write Python macros in OpenOffice/LibreOffice.
Aqueous 13y ago
I hate to throw cold water on an otherwise appealing idea, but this would make absolutely no business sense for Microsoft. Windows is Microsoft's core business. In fact, if anything, Ballmer's tenure was successful if only because of the fact that he grew Windows and Office profits by such a huge amount. If they start giving Windows away for free(which they would have to do in order to open source it, or give it away for free with support contracts) they would lose tens of billions of dollars in revenue immediately. Which would be tantamount to just saying 'Fuck it' and going home. I love open source, and there are times when it does make financial sense for a business to open source something, but this is not one of those times. The reason Google gets away with giving away Android for free is because it gives them a channel to promote their search business. The search bar on Android and Chrome, which always has and will always use Google by default, cultivates their core business, Google search. What third product beyond Windows and Office does giving away Windows for free serve? There is none.
- astrodust 13y ago
  Companies would still have to spend billions on commercial support for Windows. RedHat's built a big company on open-source software, as an example. Tech support alone could rack up billions. Microsoft would probably consider doing this at some point because piracy would shrink to zero by definition, and it'd be even more impossible to eradicate Windows from legacy systems because it would be possible to support it perpetually.
  - nemothekid 13y ago
    RedHat is tiny compared to Microsoft, and I don't think RedHat is the model for MS to follow. RedHat does only a billion in revenue compared to MS' 77 billion. Granted there are different forces at play, but you can't really recommend a company like Microsoft move to RedHat's model unless you were 100% sure that Microsoft's licensing revenue was either 1.) a tiny fraction compared to their tech support revenue or 2.) by open sourcing they could make the money they lost on licensing through even more tech support. Doesn't seem likely given that there are companies paying for both the license and tech support.
javanix 13y ago
As a practical matter this would most likely be a total non-starter - losing all that licensing revenue in one fell swoop would probably not be palatable to shareholders. As a thought experiment, however, it is plenty enticing. Vulnerabilities would be easier to find (at least at the outset), but with such a huge and slow-moving install base would probably be more serious. I would imagine "translation" projects such as WINE and Mono would either massively accelerate development, or drastically drop off depending on how many *nix users would move to the new platform.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > As a practical matter this would most likely be a total non-starter - losing all that licensing revenue in one fell swoop would probably not be palatable to shareholders. Recasting licensing charges to large OEMs as "brand certification" charges that are required to use the Windows trademark, and incorporating support pricing schemes that encourage those who want to purchase support to also purchase certified Windows from Microsoft or with hardware from brand-certified OEMs is probably pretty straightforward, and probably preserves a big chunk of the licensing revenue.
bluepnume 13y ago
Forgive me if I'm missing something -- but how does open sourcing windows mean giving it away for free? They can still sell an open source OS, right? If the argument is that it would be too easy to steal; well, it's already beyond trivial to pirate windows.
- cbr 13y ago
  If it were open source it would be legal to copy it. Large corporations and OEMs that wouldn't consider pirating Windows would be happy to switch to using it for free.
  - bluepnume 13y ago
    Surely that depends on the license though? It would be possible to license open-source windows in such a way that corporations and OEMs couldn't distribute it without paying a license fee.
    - plorkyeran 13y ago
      Such a license would not be an open-source license.
      - bluepnume 13y ago
        What? Surely this falls under the free-as-in-beer vs free-as-in-speech distinction? What about RHEL? -- that operates on a paid open-source model.
        plorkyeran 13y ago
        And there's multiple free version of RH that are basically identical other than the branding and support.
andmarios 13y ago
Developers and engineers are attracted to open source because it is well documented, because most open source projects share a common logic (derived from UNIX), because they know it. An open source version of Windows wouldn't be attractive for open source — free software developers. It would be nice though if it happened. EDIT: The author of the article seems to treat open source as a buzz keyword. His writing is quite offending.
- starter_john 13y ago
  Sorry i offended! What was offensive to you? Actually I built and sold an open source Java Spreadsheet SDK so I'm 'in the zone' with MSFT product and FOSS business models. I do not see FOSS as a buzzwordm in fact, in this context as a business model strategy to revive a faltering product/brand. I agree the code might not be attractive, but what about all of the Windows developers that would suddenly have the same benefits that Linux devs have had over the years. I think the current free software devs may not be into it. But a whole new crop of FOSS advocates might take up the Open Windows cause.
  - starter_john 13y ago
    also, sadly, FOSS as a 'buzz keyword' is pretty out of fashion so i wasn't being controversial for its own sake.
candybar 13y ago
I'm with everyone else that as written the proposal makes no sense, but there may be big portions of Windows, including probably almost all of the kernel, as well as much of pre-XP versions of Windows, that can be released as open source without much revenue impact. Same probably goes for portions of .NET, Office, etc. In fact .NET and Visual Studio probably make the most sense. They should strive to move .NET closer to where Oracle is with Java/JVM. The problem with Microsoft's platform strategy at this point is that they control too much of everything, which means third parties cannot meaningfully compete and contribute to the ecosystem, which of course leads to a vicious cycle. There's a middle path somewhere that allows Microsoft to open-source enough that their open-source stack is competitive, but not such that it cannibalizes their existing businesses.
- yuhong 13y ago
  In fact, people has proposed releasing XP as open source so that security updates can continue to be produced.
chadwickthebold 13y ago
Yeah, serious misunderstanding of the Windows market here. They absolutely kill enterprise. And they do it selling the platform and the software that runs on it, too.
vadivlkumar 13y ago
I think most likely MS openly supported, APL based .NET system would do far more magic for now. Next should be Windows Mobile.
starter_john 13y ago
I'm the author of the article thanks to all of you for getting into the debate! To radmuzom who says I have no clue about MSFT in the enterprise is mistaken. Actually I worked in enterprise IT as a Systems admin for many years, so i do have some clue that MSFT makes a lot of cash in the Enterprise. Obviously, Office, Sharepoint, Excel Services, SQL Server, former Azure etc. I'm no Windows hater -- I clung to windows 7 as my team all went MacOSX and I always have been totally agnostic about this stuff, really just using the best tool for the job is my motto. I'll tell you, the Windows File Explorer still kicks ass on the damned Finder. Don't get me started on Google. Anyway. In fact if you check my resume, I was CEO of a startup that built one of the first Java Spreadsheet SDK for Excel by reverse engineering the Excel file format in Java and selling to the big enterprises that depend upon Excel. I did this over 12 years, and sold the company (Extentech) in 2012. We also competed with Microsoft as an Open Source company by providing a great open source product called OpenXLS (sf.net/projects/openxls) I am pretty much an Enterprise Java/Excel expert at the byte level, and know the business models around Enterprise software and open source as a weapon of choice in this area is something I've studied for years. So aaanyway, not like my feelings are hurt, but I do know a thing or two about both Open Source, Microsoft, and Microsoft products for the enterprise and Consumer. Maybe read author bios before assuming you can judge what the author knows. Your point that your bank will never switch from windows in a million years or whatever is kind of ignorant because just the fact that Windows goes open source will not magically rip the OS from your phone or uninstall itself from your bank PCs. That would be done exactly how? And to those that say Microsoft cannot afford it... Of course it will come at a huge price -- but what else are they going to do with their cash to re-establish relevance as the PC fades away and their Mobile initiatives have sputtered mightily (to date...) Sure there would be pain, like any major pivot. But the pain of being forced to commoditize and give away Windows by Google Chrome and iOS and maybe someday Firefox Phone or Ubuntu will be greater -- it is pretty much happening as anyone with eyes can see. To all those that say Windows revenue is untouchable: why did Windows 8 upgrade cost 1/5 of WIndows 7 upgrade? Was it because Microsoft wanted to make less money??? No, it was price pressure from Apple and Google (and some lesser degree Linux.) The thing folks here are missing is that in the innovation cycle and product lifecycle, Windows is at deaths door. Selling operating systems is an EOL business model. Operating Systems are totally commoditized at this point. Anyway my basic ideas are that if you consider the big picture of clinging to a shrinking userbase and sales models of the past -- MSFT would be smart to at least take the reigns of this shift and make a major pivot away from current business model. In other words, to all that say "Windows is XX% of total revenue Yadda we can never change that math" -- I say this is probably what Steve Ballmer has been saying all along as the ship has been slowly sinking. It will be 20% of revenue, then 10%, then 0% -- because that will be the trajectory of Windows market share. With open source, you become the ultimate competitor on Price -- and you go for Market Share -- the very thing that Windows is going to inevitably lose here in time. As for "is it even possible"? To answer your thoughtful questions: First off, MSFT R&D and programmers would keep their jobs and would still develop windows, in other words, the same level of "quality" (debatable) you get in Retail windows would be there PLUS you'd get code review, patches, and feature enhancements from the community. Community managers are well able to corral these types of changes into a commercial product just ask Jono Bacon over at Ubuntu (yo Jono) ... anyway... the open source OS is well traveled path by now, and MSFT has well more than enough resources (engineering/marketing) to do it. THat said, maybe there is a lot of bad code in there they don't want public?? Who knows. Too many nasty inline comments about Steve Jobs perhaps? To sukuriant, these objections to open source software from non-open source developers are pretty long in the tooth -- in fact many companies make money by "giving away razors and selling the blades" -- open source business models are no different. But a company that is used to a huge monopolistic revenue stream and major margins on licensing revenue is simply not psychologically ready to grok this point. An old non-tech saying that serves us well in this industry where copying and redistribution come at zero cost: "Give it away in order to Keep it." -john
smacktoward 13y ago
It will never happen. Windows is so dominant in the OS marketplace that the toughest competition Microsoft faces when trying to sell a new version of Windows isn't a competing product; it's old versions of Windows. Windows 95 had to compete with Win 3.x. Windows XP had to compete with Win95/98. Windows 7 had to compete with XP. And so on. The biggest lever they have to make customers do the upgrade is that Windows is closed source. That means the only place you can get support for it is from Microsoft. So if Microsoft says "there will be no support for Windows XP after 2014," that means exactly what it says -- either upgrade by then, or learn to live on your own in the wilderness, like some kind of IT mountain man. If Microsoft open-sourced Windows it would allow other companies to pick up and support old versions of the software, independent of MS' product lifecycle. And that would make it possible for customers to sit on old versions effectively forever. Which would make selling new versions extremely difficult.
- xahrepap 13y ago
  Ugh... could you imagine if someone was able to maintain Windows XP security updates on their own? The corporate world would never move on! Developers would be supporting XP and IE8 for an eternity.
robotcookies 13y ago
Nokia's Symbian was open source when it had more smartphone market share than ios and android combined. Open sourcing alone isn't going to help Microsoft gain traction in the mobile world any more than it did for Symbian.
- starter_john 13y ago
  good point. but I think windows and symbian are qualitatively different. windows is such a massive install base and such 'critical infrastructure' that unlikely it would vanish like Symbian -- the cost of switching as many on this thread have pointed out is high and nobody is suggesting Windows be dumped for XYZ so... it's the dominance of windows that means they still have a good strong position to do this and control the process. because of its still dominant position it would only likely increase market share thus relevance, thus developer interest in a virtuous cycle. cannibalize your products before someone else does... a good rule to follow in this biz.
starter_john 13y ago
Article author here again: Quick point: I never said it was likely -- my feeling is MSFT will take the typical "innovators dilemma" track to irrelevance and disruption because of the lack of agility and ability to make this type of big move. But as for practicality another quick point: just becuase it is open source doesn't mean MSFT can't use a custom license that avoids 90% of these objections. It could be strict GPL and really nobody would want to fork that damned thing so it would likely not splinter much and with the awesome developer community of Windows devs that could be immediately brought "in the inner circle" of code, I think the Open Windows FOSS community could be second to none. And so you could see huge amount of security patches and other bugfixes being corralled into the codebase which would improve quality and big banks etc. could fix their own bugs or build custom features at will. A standards body could even give a huge degree of assurance to Enterprise IT that MSFT wont consumerize or unilaterally change license terms from year to next, thus reducing risk. Those that doubt open source business models should realize that Google and Amazon AWS are massively open source (and without that "give it away" attitude of their core offering would be nowhere) and derive huge benefit from the contributions of the FOSS community. This is real bottom line value folks.
fsqcds 13y ago
What is superior in windows explorer? Is that sarcasm?
- starter_john 13y ago
  Sarcasm, actually no, I am sure Windows File Explorer few advocates in the wild. Personally, I really prefer the Windows File Explorer over Finder or Gnome/KDE with its file system integration with apps (right-click open with), easier more powerful search capability, very easy cut/paste from right+click as well which in OSX is only "copy" -- so to "move" a file requires a copy, go find the new location, paste, then go delete old location. Not really debate-worthy just personal opinion. Do you know a better way to cut/paste files in Finder? I'm eager as I'm on a mac (and otherwise love it)
starter_john 13y ago
chadwickthebold -- just because it's open source does not mean they wouldn't charge businesses and enterprises equivalent support fees which is basically what the Enterprises are paying for. Oh wait you think they want Windows for the Tile-UI? No it's the supported, mission critical apps. Also they make more money if they retain and grow market share through open sourcing this commoditized platform code by selling more Office, Sharepoint, etc. to the even more enthusiastic users and developers that the FOSS move would likely provide. Opening the code does nothing to revenue if they choose to sell the same basic Enterprise packages but remove the per-seat Windows license revenue (only) and replace it with "per seat" tech support and priority bug fixing. How is it that something so abstract as a software license sale can become like the rock of gibralter in people's minds? OMG this completely invented human abstraction can never be changed??? Ballmeresque thinking, in my opinion. I've spent more time over the years explaining basic "give away razor sell the blade" Open Source business models to really smart people. Still baffles me that software licensing is the only thing people seem to grok. Oh one thing never mentioned: this would finally bring an end to Windows piracy...

30 points by mjhea0 13y ago

cheery 13y ago

Nope, it's time to put it into rest.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

jamesaguilar 13y ago

Doesn't really matter whether it is time or not since it is never going to happen.

astrowilliam 13y ago

Though I'd love to see this happen, it never will. The reason is that MSFT is driven and run not by engineers and programmers but by business people that would see this as a losing situation because every copy of Windows that they don't sell isn't $ in the MSFTs bank account. In other words, why would they give away something that they could sell. They can sell the OS as well as apps for the OS, it's a winning business model for them. Prime example, http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/22/windows-7-microsoft-profits-34-5/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/22/windows-7-microsoft-profits...

sukuriant 13y ago
Just a question, though I do work for MSFT as a disclosure: What does being an engineer/programmer have to do with selling something that I could give away? Do only business majors have garage sales instead of giving everything of theirs to Goodwill? Do only business majors create pies that they sell, rather than give away? What about authors and their works? Do only the business majors of that profession sell their things, rather than give them away for free on internet forums?
- astrowilliam 13y ago
  As a developer myself, I can immediately see the excitement this would bring to the dev community. As a businessman as well, I can see how this will never happen. That's all I was implying.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- starter_john 13y ago
  Hi Sukuriant, As a developer, I share the concern that one's work has value and should not be 'given away'. But the reality is our work is a commodity, and a business can use and sell commodities in the most profitable competitive way. So this just means moving pieces around on the table a bit. You can still make money, and in fact save money and make more money by focusing on the true alignment with your customer that Microsoft is veering away from. From what I know of the Enterprise, new versions of Windows are a huge risk and expense, hardly the big picture alignment with the customer that a company should have. Does the Enterprise customer want to deal with a desktop Windows 8 rollout? Instead, borrow from the SaaS playbook by focusing on support and continuous releases instead of gigantic monolithic product releases that upend the universe and cause CTOs migraines around the globe. To replace Windows license revenue, simply "give away razors, sell blades" by replacing Windows license (contract) revenue with support (contract) revenue. The support is provided anyway, of course you don't tell Fortune 500 CTO to pound sand if there's a bug. So just change the game a bit. Make the same (or more) money. Go from being hated (UGH another windows upgrade) to loved (WHOO MSFT Open Sourced Windows! frees up budget for new Windows application development let's buy some SQL Server!) And in practical terms, here's what the invoice lineitem looks like (share with your boss??!?!) SKU-100 | $99/year | Enterprise-wide Guaranteed Bug Response 1 hour Turnaround / per user / annual subscription - Open Windows 2015
  - sukuriant 13y ago
    Microsoft's corporate strategy is well outside of my control or understanding. I only mentioned being a Microsoft employee because in conversations about my company, I have to tell people that I work for them. That said, I was speaking in the general sense, not in the specific sense of Microsoft

tdees40 13y ago

Um, the Windows division of MSFT brought in $19.2B of their $78B in total revenue. I'm no expert, but giving up 25% of your revenue is no way to run a company.

topbanana 13y ago
You could have said the same about Amazon before they launched Kindle
- radmuzom 13y ago
  Amazon's core business is retail, not technology. I am excluding AWS, Mechanical Turk, etc. in this discussion. So selling the Kindle at a loss makes sense to them given that it will used by consumers to purchase retail goods (books, movies, music, etc. in the case of Kindle). Microsoft's core business is Windows - what would they sell if they give it away for free? Tetris?
- bdcravens 13y ago
  What product was 25% of their revenue that they began giving away?
- freehunter 13y ago
  How did Kindle lose money for Amazon? I'd imagine the money made from Kindle hardware plus the fact that ebooks are cheaper to stock and therefore have a much higher profit margin would be a gain for Amazon. Stocking a billion books isn't cheap like stocking a billion ebooks.
riggins 13y ago
Um, the Windows division of MSFT brought in $19.2B of their $78B in total revenue. Even more important, Windows brings in almost half of their operating profit. I'm going off the 2010 10-K, Windows was ~$12B of operating profit, MSFT Business Division (i.e. Office) was about $14B of operating profit ... out of $27B of total operating profit. As you would expect, the monopolies bring in the huge margins. The other stuff just earns a normal return on capital.

bencollier49 13y ago

I suspect that Windows is full of cross-licensed patents, or licensed code, which would make open-sourcing it fairly challenging. It would be super cool if it ever happened though.

kaolinite 13y ago

If Windows was open-sourced, it would end up even more of a mess for the average person. OEM's would customise and skin every last bit of it. It would become a monster.

reidrac 13y ago
Well, from the point of view of the user it is happening now. Just check all the crapware that comes "by default" with any Windows machine (Dell, I'm looking at you).

topbanana 13y ago

Maybe. They should definitely open source .net now though. They aren't showing it the love it deserves

pionar 13y ago
Really? Are you kidding? .NET as it stands, is way ahead of other virtual-machine environments. What are you basing this on?

radmuzom 13y ago

It's written by a author who has very little clue that Microsoft's primary customers are large enterprises, and not the "average consumer". "Users have embraced the productivity of simple and mobile… And there’s no going back!" - Does this even make sense? I work for a large bank with around 50,000 employees - and it is absolutely essential that we are provided with an operating system which is familiar, supported, stable and able to run the thousands of applications already being used internally. The company will never ever - at least in the next 50 to 100 years - switch from Windows simply because it does not make any business sense to do so and will come at an immense cost to shareholders. And let me add that I use a Windows 8 mobile, and it is one of the finest mobile operating system I have ever used. Apps run in 512MB RAM as smoothly as my wife's Android Sony Xperia which is almost four times as costly (and four times or more as powerful). I have never been satisfied more with an OS.

smacktoward 13y ago
In my experience enterprise customers tend (after a time lag of several years) to get dragged kicking and screaming into using whatever their employees use at home. Enterprise IT said time-shared mainframes were just fine. Employees bought their own PCs and liked them. Eventually enterprise IT was buying PCs. Enterprise IT said text-mode interfaces were just fine. Employees bought their own GUI systems and liked them. Eventually enterprise IT was buying GUI systems. Enterprise IT said desk phones were just fine for everyone (except top execs, of course). Employees bought their own cell phones and liked them. Eventually enterprise IT was buying cell phones. Enterprise IT said BlackBerries were just fine for everyone. Employees bought their own iPhones and liked them. Eventually enterprise IT was buying iPhones. Etc., etc., etc. Of course, the larger the enterprise the longer the time lag. But it's rare to see a business that planted its flag on "X is just fine" not eventually hauling that flag down.
- radmuzom 13y ago
  Yes, but unlike most programmers, people (restricted to bank employees in my original example) 1. Love windows, even though they may use an Iphone. 2. Find it very productive to get work done. That is because it IS a brilliant operating system for all categories of users (including programmers). 3. Have jobs (a lot of them) because of Microsoft Office. As of today, there is simply no alternative - anyone who claims otherwise is lying or has an ulterior motive. And no one cares that you can write Python macros in OpenOffice/LibreOffice.

Aqueous 13y ago

I hate to throw cold water on an otherwise appealing idea, but this would make absolutely no business sense for Microsoft. Windows is Microsoft's core business. In fact, if anything, Ballmer's tenure was successful if only because of the fact that he grew Windows and Office profits by such a huge amount. If they start giving Windows away for free(which they would have to do in order to open source it, or give it away for free with support contracts) they would lose tens of billions of dollars in revenue immediately. Which would be tantamount to just saying 'Fuck it' and going home. I love open source, and there are times when it does make financial sense for a business to open source something, but this is not one of those times. The reason Google gets away with giving away Android for free is because it gives them a channel to promote their search business. The search bar on Android and Chrome, which always has and will always use Google by default, cultivates their core business, Google search. What third product beyond Windows and Office does giving away Windows for free serve? There is none.

astrodust 13y ago
Companies would still have to spend billions on commercial support for Windows. RedHat's built a big company on open-source software, as an example. Tech support alone could rack up billions. Microsoft would probably consider doing this at some point because piracy would shrink to zero by definition, and it'd be even more impossible to eradicate Windows from legacy systems because it would be possible to support it perpetually.
- nemothekid 13y ago
  RedHat is tiny compared to Microsoft, and I don't think RedHat is the model for MS to follow. RedHat does only a billion in revenue compared to MS' 77 billion. Granted there are different forces at play, but you can't really recommend a company like Microsoft move to RedHat's model unless you were 100% sure that Microsoft's licensing revenue was either 1.) a tiny fraction compared to their tech support revenue or 2.) by open sourcing they could make the money they lost on licensing through even more tech support. Doesn't seem likely given that there are companies paying for both the license and tech support.

javanix 13y ago

As a practical matter this would most likely be a total non-starter - losing all that licensing revenue in one fell swoop would probably not be palatable to shareholders. As a thought experiment, however, it is plenty enticing. Vulnerabilities would be easier to find (at least at the outset), but with such a huge and slow-moving install base would probably be more serious. I would imagine "translation" projects such as WINE and Mono would either massively accelerate development, or drastically drop off depending on how many *nix users would move to the new platform.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> As a practical matter this would most likely be a total non-starter - losing all that licensing revenue in one fell swoop would probably not be palatable to shareholders. Recasting licensing charges to large OEMs as "brand certification" charges that are required to use the Windows trademark, and incorporating support pricing schemes that encourage those who want to purchase support to also purchase certified Windows from Microsoft or with hardware from brand-certified OEMs is probably pretty straightforward, and probably preserves a big chunk of the licensing revenue.

bluepnume 13y ago

Forgive me if I'm missing something -- but how does open sourcing windows mean giving it away for free? They can still sell an open source OS, right? If the argument is that it would be too easy to steal; well, it's already beyond trivial to pirate windows.

cbr 13y ago
If it were open source it would be legal to copy it. Large corporations and OEMs that wouldn't consider pirating Windows would be happy to switch to using it for free.
- bluepnume 13y ago
  Surely that depends on the license though? It would be possible to license open-source windows in such a way that corporations and OEMs couldn't distribute it without paying a license fee.
  - plorkyeran 13y ago
    Such a license would not be an open-source license.
    - bluepnume 13y ago
      What? Surely this falls under the free-as-in-beer vs free-as-in-speech distinction? What about RHEL? -- that operates on a paid open-source model.
      - plorkyeran 13y ago
        And there's multiple free version of RH that are basically identical other than the branding and support.

andmarios 13y ago

Developers and engineers are attracted to open source because it is well documented, because most open source projects share a common logic (derived from UNIX), because they know it. An open source version of Windows wouldn't be attractive for open source — free software developers. It would be nice though if it happened. EDIT: The author of the article seems to treat open source as a buzz keyword. His writing is quite offending.

starter_john 13y ago
Sorry i offended! What was offensive to you? Actually I built and sold an open source Java Spreadsheet SDK so I'm 'in the zone' with MSFT product and FOSS business models. I do not see FOSS as a buzzwordm in fact, in this context as a business model strategy to revive a faltering product/brand. I agree the code might not be attractive, but what about all of the Windows developers that would suddenly have the same benefits that Linux devs have had over the years. I think the current free software devs may not be into it. But a whole new crop of FOSS advocates might take up the Open Windows cause.
- starter_john 13y ago
  also, sadly, FOSS as a 'buzz keyword' is pretty out of fashion so i wasn't being controversial for its own sake.

candybar 13y ago

I'm with everyone else that as written the proposal makes no sense, but there may be big portions of Windows, including probably almost all of the kernel, as well as much of pre-XP versions of Windows, that can be released as open source without much revenue impact. Same probably goes for portions of .NET, Office, etc. In fact .NET and Visual Studio probably make the most sense. They should strive to move .NET closer to where Oracle is with Java/JVM. The problem with Microsoft's platform strategy at this point is that they control too much of everything, which means third parties cannot meaningfully compete and contribute to the ecosystem, which of course leads to a vicious cycle. There's a middle path somewhere that allows Microsoft to open-source enough that their open-source stack is competitive, but not such that it cannibalizes their existing businesses.

yuhong 13y ago
In fact, people has proposed releasing XP as open source so that security updates can continue to be produced.

chadwickthebold 13y ago

Yeah, serious misunderstanding of the Windows market here. They absolutely kill enterprise. And they do it selling the platform and the software that runs on it, too.

vadivlkumar 13y ago

I think most likely MS openly supported, APL based .NET system would do far more magic for now. Next should be Windows Mobile.

starter_john 13y ago

I'm the author of the article thanks to all of you for getting into the debate! To radmuzom who says I have no clue about MSFT in the enterprise is mistaken. Actually I worked in enterprise IT as a Systems admin for many years, so i do have some clue that MSFT makes a lot of cash in the Enterprise. Obviously, Office, Sharepoint, Excel Services, SQL Server, former Azure etc. I'm no Windows hater -- I clung to windows 7 as my team all went MacOSX and I always have been totally agnostic about this stuff, really just using the best tool for the job is my motto. I'll tell you, the Windows File Explorer still kicks ass on the damned Finder. Don't get me started on Google. Anyway. In fact if you check my resume, I was CEO of a startup that built one of the first Java Spreadsheet SDK for Excel by reverse engineering the Excel file format in Java and selling to the big enterprises that depend upon Excel. I did this over 12 years, and sold the company (Extentech) in 2012. We also competed with Microsoft as an Open Source company by providing a great open source product called OpenXLS (sf.net/projects/openxls) I am pretty much an Enterprise Java/Excel expert at the byte level, and know the business models around Enterprise software and open source as a weapon of choice in this area is something I've studied for years. So aaanyway, not like my feelings are hurt, but I do know a thing or two about both Open Source, Microsoft, and Microsoft products for the enterprise and Consumer. Maybe read author bios before assuming you can judge what the author knows. Your point that your bank will never switch from windows in a million years or whatever is kind of ignorant because just the fact that Windows goes open source will not magically rip the OS from your phone or uninstall itself from your bank PCs. That would be done exactly how? And to those that say Microsoft cannot afford it... Of course it will come at a huge price -- but what else are they going to do with their cash to re-establish relevance as the PC fades away and their Mobile initiatives have sputtered mightily (to date...) Sure there would be pain, like any major pivot. But the pain of being forced to commoditize and give away Windows by Google Chrome and iOS and maybe someday Firefox Phone or Ubuntu will be greater -- it is pretty much happening as anyone with eyes can see. To all those that say Windows revenue is untouchable: why did Windows 8 upgrade cost 1/5 of WIndows 7 upgrade? Was it because Microsoft wanted to make less money??? No, it was price pressure from Apple and Google (and some lesser degree Linux.) The thing folks here are missing is that in the innovation cycle and product lifecycle, Windows is at deaths door. Selling operating systems is an EOL business model. Operating Systems are totally commoditized at this point. Anyway my basic ideas are that if you consider the big picture of clinging to a shrinking userbase and sales models of the past -- MSFT would be smart to at least take the reigns of this shift and make a major pivot away from current business model. In other words, to all that say "Windows is XX% of total revenue Yadda we can never change that math" -- I say this is probably what Steve Ballmer has been saying all along as the ship has been slowly sinking. It will be 20% of revenue, then 10%, then 0% -- because that will be the trajectory of Windows market share. With open source, you become the ultimate competitor on Price -- and you go for Market Share -- the very thing that Windows is going to inevitably lose here in time. As for "is it even possible"? To answer your thoughtful questions: First off, MSFT R&D and programmers would keep their jobs and would still develop windows, in other words, the same level of "quality" (debatable) you get in Retail windows would be there PLUS you'd get code review, patches, and feature enhancements from the community. Community managers are well able to corral these types of changes into a commercial product just ask Jono Bacon over at Ubuntu (yo Jono) ... anyway... the open source OS is well traveled path by now, and MSFT has well more than enough resources (engineering/marketing) to do it. THat said, maybe there is a lot of bad code in there they don't want public?? Who knows. Too many nasty inline comments about Steve Jobs perhaps? To sukuriant, these objections to open source software from non-open source developers are pretty long in the tooth -- in fact many companies make money by "giving away razors and selling the blades" -- open source business models are no different. But a company that is used to a huge monopolistic revenue stream and major margins on licensing revenue is simply not psychologically ready to grok this point. An old non-tech saying that serves us well in this industry where copying and redistribution come at zero cost: "Give it away in order to Keep it." -john

smacktoward 13y ago

It will never happen. Windows is so dominant in the OS marketplace that the toughest competition Microsoft faces when trying to sell a new version of Windows isn't a competing product; it's old versions of Windows. Windows 95 had to compete with Win 3.x. Windows XP had to compete with Win95/98. Windows 7 had to compete with XP. And so on. The biggest lever they have to make customers do the upgrade is that Windows is closed source. That means the only place you can get support for it is from Microsoft. So if Microsoft says "there will be no support for Windows XP after 2014," that means exactly what it says -- either upgrade by then, or learn to live on your own in the wilderness, like some kind of IT mountain man. If Microsoft open-sourced Windows it would allow other companies to pick up and support old versions of the software, independent of MS' product lifecycle. And that would make it possible for customers to sit on old versions effectively forever. Which would make selling new versions extremely difficult.

xahrepap 13y ago
Ugh... could you imagine if someone was able to maintain Windows XP security updates on their own? The corporate world would never move on! Developers would be supporting XP and IE8 for an eternity.

robotcookies 13y ago

Nokia's Symbian was open source when it had more smartphone market share than ios and android combined. Open sourcing alone isn't going to help Microsoft gain traction in the mobile world any more than it did for Symbian.

starter_john 13y ago
good point. but I think windows and symbian are qualitatively different. windows is such a massive install base and such 'critical infrastructure' that unlikely it would vanish like Symbian -- the cost of switching as many on this thread have pointed out is high and nobody is suggesting Windows be dumped for XYZ so... it's the dominance of windows that means they still have a good strong position to do this and control the process. because of its still dominant position it would only likely increase market share thus relevance, thus developer interest in a virtuous cycle. cannibalize your products before someone else does... a good rule to follow in this biz.

starter_john 13y ago

Article author here again: Quick point: I never said it was likely -- my feeling is MSFT will take the typical "innovators dilemma" track to irrelevance and disruption because of the lack of agility and ability to make this type of big move. But as for practicality another quick point: just becuase it is open source doesn't mean MSFT can't use a custom license that avoids 90% of these objections. It could be strict GPL and really nobody would want to fork that damned thing so it would likely not splinter much and with the awesome developer community of Windows devs that could be immediately brought "in the inner circle" of code, I think the Open Windows FOSS community could be second to none. And so you could see huge amount of security patches and other bugfixes being corralled into the codebase which would improve quality and big banks etc. could fix their own bugs or build custom features at will. A standards body could even give a huge degree of assurance to Enterprise IT that MSFT wont consumerize or unilaterally change license terms from year to next, thus reducing risk. Those that doubt open source business models should realize that Google and Amazon AWS are massively open source (and without that "give it away" attitude of their core offering would be nowhere) and derive huge benefit from the contributions of the FOSS community. This is real bottom line value folks.

fsqcds 13y ago

What is superior in windows explorer? Is that sarcasm?

starter_john 13y ago
Sarcasm, actually no, I am sure Windows File Explorer few advocates in the wild. Personally, I really prefer the Windows File Explorer over Finder or Gnome/KDE with its file system integration with apps (right-click open with), easier more powerful search capability, very easy cut/paste from right+click as well which in OSX is only "copy" -- so to "move" a file requires a copy, go find the new location, paste, then go delete old location. Not really debate-worthy just personal opinion. Do you know a better way to cut/paste files in Finder? I'm eager as I'm on a mac (and otherwise love it)

starter_john 13y ago

chadwickthebold -- just because it's open source does not mean they wouldn't charge businesses and enterprises equivalent support fees which is basically what the Enterprises are paying for. Oh wait you think they want Windows for the Tile-UI? No it's the supported, mission critical apps. Also they make more money if they retain and grow market share through open sourcing this commoditized platform code by selling more Office, Sharepoint, etc. to the even more enthusiastic users and developers that the FOSS move would likely provide. Opening the code does nothing to revenue if they choose to sell the same basic Enterprise packages but remove the per-seat Windows license revenue (only) and replace it with "per seat" tech support and priority bug fixing. How is it that something so abstract as a software license sale can become like the rock of gibralter in people's minds? OMG this completely invented human abstraction can never be changed??? Ballmeresque thinking, in my opinion. I've spent more time over the years explaining basic "give away razor sell the blade" Open Source business models to really smart people. Still baffles me that software licensing is the only thing people seem to grok. Oh one thing never mentioned: this would finally bring an end to Windows piracy...