4 ms·

What Microsoft needs to do, is abandon its secrets and OS property, and participate as the perfect corporate partner, in the open-OS ethos. There is no longer

What Microsoft needs to do, is abandon its secrets and OS property, and participate as the perfect corporate partner, in the open-OS ethos. There is no longer any good reason for an OS to be anything other than a public, common, property - available to all for use and/or modification. The proprietary OS vendors are still holding on to their installed customer base, and must of course continue to support bad technology decisions. But on the other hand, in the "what shocking thing should Microsoft do next to prove that it kicks ass and is still relevant in the 21st century"-Department, wouldn't it be fabulous if The New Guy, given the reigns, decides to send the troops on a prolonged engagement far, far away from the "safety" and "sanctity" of corporate property.

Guvante 13y ago
Except you are missing something, this hasn't even begun yet. The three major OSes are controlled by Apple, Microsoft, and Google. Linux and relatives are great but haven't gained real traction outside of Android. Apple wants to sell hardware so creates a tight software ecosystem. Microsoft wants to sell software so focuses making their OS valuable enough to justify the cost. Google wants to sell ads so gives away their OS. Android is open source because Google doesn't have anything to lose by doing it. No more no less.
- vxNsr 13y ago
  And if we're going to be honest the best parts of Android aren't OSS anyway.
300bps 13y ago
What Microsoft needs to do, is abandon its secrets and OS property You provide no support for this statement, so we're left to ask what you mean by it. What is your meaning? Before you answer, please look at this: http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0 http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.... That shows that Windows is about 91% of the desktop operating system market. On what do you base them as needing to prove "it kicks ass and is still relevant in the 21st century"? In fact, the one operating system on that chart that supports an "open-OS" ethos takes up less than 2% of desktop operating system market. I would think that operating system would be the one that needs to prove its relevance as we are almost 14 years into the 21st century.
- scholia 13y ago
  Somewhat sobering to remember that Linus released the first Linux kernel before the first beta of Windows NT (1992).
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
T-A 13y ago
> There is no longer any good reason for an OS to be anything other than a public, common, property For the three months ending September 30, Microsoft's Windows division reported $4.58bn in revenue, $2.24bn in profits. Sounds like a good reason to hold off the open-sourcing a little longer, at least to me...

Guvante 13y ago

Except you are missing something, this hasn't even begun yet. The three major OSes are controlled by Apple, Microsoft, and Google. Linux and relatives are great but haven't gained real traction outside of Android. Apple wants to sell hardware so creates a tight software ecosystem. Microsoft wants to sell software so focuses making their OS valuable enough to justify the cost. Google wants to sell ads so gives away their OS. Android is open source because Google doesn't have anything to lose by doing it. No more no less.

vxNsr 13y ago
And if we're going to be honest the best parts of Android aren't OSS anyway.

300bps 13y ago

What Microsoft needs to do, is abandon its secrets and OS property You provide no support for this statement, so we're left to ask what you mean by it. What is your meaning? Before you answer, please look at this: http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0 http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.... That shows that Windows is about 91% of the desktop operating system market. On what do you base them as needing to prove "it kicks ass and is still relevant in the 21st century"? In fact, the one operating system on that chart that supports an "open-OS" ethos takes up less than 2% of desktop operating system market. I would think that operating system would be the one that needs to prove its relevance as we are almost 14 years into the 21st century.

scholia 13y ago
Somewhat sobering to remember that Linus released the first Linux kernel before the first beta of Windows NT (1992).
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

T-A 13y ago

> There is no longer any good reason for an OS to be anything other than a public, common, property For the three months ending September 30, Microsoft's Windows division reported $4.58bn in revenue, $2.24bn in profits. Sounds like a good reason to hold off the open-sourcing a little longer, at least to me...