10 ms·

Microsoft: An Open Source Windows Is 'Definitely Possible'

152 points by Libertatea 12y ago

nailer 12y ago
Nothing stopping them from doing a RHEL/CentOS setup - they open the code, keep the trademarks to themselves, if you want 'Windows' you have to pay for support. People who don't want support are probably pirating Windows anyway.
- brudgers 12y ago
  Among the possible hurdles to open sourcing Windows are any dependencies on 3rd party code with incompatible licence terms.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - cwyers 12y ago
    I think he meant selling Windows under an RHEL model, not making their own Linux distribution.
  - minthd 12y ago
    >> Current Windows software wouldn't be compatible with this, there is no prior lock in... Why ?
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - Thev00d00 12y ago
    I don't think that is what nailer was saying, I read it as if MS where to open source Windows, they could then run the openWin project in the same way as Redhat run things now.
  - asadlionpk 12y ago
    I think current software will be compatible with the open source version. Since they won't likely be swapping the entire kernel.
- louhike 12y ago
  I agree it could be an interesting move. But forks could be dangerous if they want to keep their predominance on the home market.
- minthd 12y ago
  But they'd be exposed to competition on support, and even today, external tools offer better support than windows in many case(for example security micro-virtualization like qubes/bromium) and many offer cheaper stuff - all this while the code is closed. If the platform will be open, opening a huge market for support ,Microsoft will have a very tough life.
- raldu 12y ago
  The point about piracy is a strong enough reason for freeing the source code. Why not just let people buy quality support instead of some blurb of binary data? It also would be interesting to see how many different forks emerge out of the original code base. A kind of fork comes to my mind is a specialized Windows build for high performance gaming. Gamers would be dedicated enough to build community support around their fork, then Microsoft can fight over a monopoly on "better support" instead.
WDCDev 12y ago
I get the feeling MS is heading towards Windows running on a MS Linux kernel at some point. An MS linux build, that supports .NET (CoreCLR) and a true cross platform windowing library (WPF) would be serious force to contend with in both the enterprise and consumer markets.
- danieldk 12y ago
  I get the feeling MS is heading towards Windows running on a MS Linux kernel at some point. What would be the point? The NT kernel has a newer architecture than the Linux kernel and build upon Dave Cutler's experience with VMS (which could already benefit from learning from Unix). Open sourcing the NT kernel does make a lot of sense though, since it would be easier to integrate Windows in Xen, KVM, and other virtualization infrastructure. They will probably end up taking an Apple-like approach. Open bits where it is strategic and keep some bits closed to sell Windows licenses. It 'only' took a new CEO to do the rational thing.
  - nly 12y ago
    "newer architecture" doesn't really mean much. Microsoft have to maintain a more rigid overall structure because they are committed to third-party binary compatibility wrt drivers and such. As a result, major architectural shifts in things like networking or graphics (XP -> Vista) cause a lot of pain. It's a trade-off. Linux looks floppy architecturally because it can afford to be.
  - userulluipeste 12y ago
    "Open sourcing the NT kernel does make a lot of sense though, since it would be easier to integrate Windows in Xen, KVM, and other virtualization infrastructure." If you're interested in an open-source NT kernel, you might be interested in ReactOS. Although their target comprises development of the entire OS, their main task was the NT kernel and "the glue" with existing parts of Win32 sub-system developed by Wine.
- brudgers 12y ago
  The odds that Windows will become based on Linux seems pretty low to me. There are advantages of Windows architecture, e.g. PowerShell and similar reflection technologies that are unlikely to be implemented in *nix OS's. Engineering tradeoffs happen on both sides.
bonsai80 12y ago
I thought April Fool's day was on Wednesday. Now I'm not sure which is pulling my leg: Every single fake story from April 1, or this? Interesting things sure have been going on since the LA Clippers changed ownership!
bobajeff 12y ago
If they open sourced something important to Windows like the NT Kernel or DirectX then I'll believe they are serious about open sourcing it.
snarfy 12y ago
I don't want Windows. I just want Visual Studio.
- vanattab 12y ago
  Visual studio with the vsVim plugin is a pleasure to use.
spdegabrielle 12y ago
Of course it's possible. That doesn't mean it will happen.
farresito 12y ago
I'm really liking the way Microsoft is going. While there are quite a lot of things they need to improve on, they are becoming more and more open, and I have a feeling we will eventually see an open source Windows version.
wantab 12y ago
I think this is positively maybe almost definitely possible. We've heard these vaporware statements from Microsoft in the past. I'm used to them. I guess they're starting them up again. As a reminder, "open source" doesn't mean free, in case anyone goes off on that tangent.
- anewhnaccount 12y ago
  Even a "shared source" NT kernel would be very cool.
- jordigh 12y ago
  > As a reminder, "open source" doesn't mean free, in case anyone goes off on that tangent. As a reminder, yes it does: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/02/msg01641.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/02/msg01641.html I don't know where people got the idea that open source is not a synonym for free software. It was always meant to be a synonym. http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgotten-about-open-source/ http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgot... I'm sure Microsoft understands what open source means, because they don't call their source-visible licenses "open source". "Shared source" is the term they invented for their non-free, source-visible licenses. If they are talking about open source in an article, I do think they really do mean open source.
  - castratikron 12y ago
    >I don't know where people got the idea that open source is not a synonym for free software. It was always meant to be a synonym. Probably from rms himself. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
    - jordigh 12y ago
      He also says it's a synonym: “Free software.” “Open source.” If it's the same software, does it matter which name you use? It refers to the same software, but one emphasises one part or another. It's like saying "developing country" to emphasise that supposedly it's working on improving or "third world country" to emphasise that it's not part of the two big warring Cold-war era groups, but the two terms refer to the same thing.
yodsanklai 12y ago
I don't know if they still do it, but some time ago, Microsoft used to "lend" Windows source code to some academics that worked on operating systems.
- venomsnake 12y ago
  The code is not that valuable anyway. No one will be able to steal IP from them, very few people will have the acumen to build their distro, so they have nothing to lose. And in the case that people find innovative uses for windows - hey - pay up.
UUMMUU 12y ago
I know it won't but I would love it if they would make Spartan based off Webkit. (Edit: or Gecko or something else with a bit of traction.) Edit 2: I fear that if they start from scratch and put it on every Windows 10 machine it's going to be feature incomplete from the start and force web developer hacks just like IE does now.
- seba_dos1 12y ago
  I wouldn't. There's already a threat of Webkit's monoculture on the web, we don't need to make it worse. If you'd like to see Spartan based on some already existing free software engine, then go for Gecko; however, another big player on the engine market won't hurt, especially after Opera went Webkit (well, Blink technically, but it's not a big difference yet).
  - UUMMUU 12y ago
    Good point. As a front end developer I just am still wary of what Microsoft produces as a browser just because IE left such a bad taste in my mouth and I really love what Opera did with it.
higherpurpose 12y ago
Put up or shut up?
Avalaxy 12y ago
"Earlier this year, Microsoft open sourced a tool called .NET, a popular way of building online applications, and the hope is that this will expand the tool’s reach. " Shivers...
- vanattab 12y ago
  Why the shivers? Have you used .NET? I my experience visual studios + .net framework is a pleasure to work with.
  - Avalaxy 12y ago
    That was not my point, I'm a fulltime .NET dev and love it. My point was they way they described it as a "tool" instead of a framework. I don't get why this has to be downvoted.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      A framework is a kind of tool, and Wired isn't focussed on an audience of developers and people for whom the particular type of tool ("framework") would be all that meaningful (and those for whome it would be already know what .NET is, and wouldn't be hurt by the less-specific description.)
    - ZenoArrow 12y ago
      FWIW, I didn't downvote you, but I imagine the people who did misunderstood your intention, and I can see why as shivers implies you were creeped out, which is sufficiently different than joking about the accuracy of the article. No problem though, better luck next time!
jkot 12y ago
There is already opensource Windows implementation: Wine. Perhaps they could contribute there. In the meantime Windows 10 certification no longer requires option to disable secure boot. It might not be possible to install alternative operating systems on new computers.
- jordigh 12y ago
  I guess ReactOS is really more like an OS. Wine is just implementing the Windows API, not a whole OS.
  - giancarlostoro 12y ago
    Even so, having used Play On Linux (I guess a "Wine fork") just to run Flash on Linux where it wouldn't I've had positive results thus far. ReactOS is nice, but it's a whole OS, and it's not necessarily the greatest option just yet, plus you wouldn't get to run many Linux packages.
    - spystath 12y ago
      PlayOnLinux is just a (very useful) wrapper around wine. It uses stock wine and you can even use multiple versions of wine with it.
- farresito 12y ago
  Doesn't really matter to much whether Wine exists or not. People are not arguing about whether Windows software runs on Linux or not. What people actually want (or would like, I guess) is for Windows to be open source. They would like to be able to contribute, maybe, and to avoid closed software.
- emodendroket 12y ago
  Win32 is not Windows; the latter encompasses many more things.
hsnewman 12y ago
Open source <> GPL or BSD license. Yes open sourcing would improve quality with more eyes on the code, but Microsoft isn't going to give it away.
- jordigh 12y ago
  Open source means free software means freedom. Although in the past MSFT has used non-free, source-visible licenses, they seem to understand very well what "open source" means. I don't think they use their "shared source" licenses for new things. If they are serious about freeing Windows, I'm sure they will do it under a free license. Edit: Sigh, downvotes already, so here is your reminder of where open source comes from and what it means: http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgotten-about-open-source/ http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgot...
  - peatmoss 12y ago
    That's right. Open Source typically means OSI approved license. Sadly, Open Source gets used as a term to refer to things that are inclusive in some way, or where access to source code is given without the bundle of rights associated with OSI approved licenses. As RMS says, all Free Software is open source. I believe the converse statement to be true always or nearly always all the time. Though the licenses are the same, the guiding philosophies are different. Open Source tends to focus on the benefits of openness, such as quality resulting from many reviewers. By contrast, RMS and the Free software folks will tell you that quality isn't the primary aim--the 4 freedoms are. In terms of licenses, Copyleft licenses are a subset of Free and Open Source licenses that restrict the ability to make derived works non-Free/Open. E.g. BSD is Free software, but not Copyleft.
    - Karunamon 12y ago
      Wait a second, since when did OSI (or any group in particular, for that matter) become the ultimate arbiter on what "open source" means? I'm not saying this to be argumentative - I don't like the idea of something like that in the hands of a bureaucracy.
bayesianhorse 12y ago
As far as I understand it, the business case for not open sourcing Windows is loosing merit. Linux is a very advanced operating system, in many ways surpassing current Windows versions - technically speaking. The problem for Windows seems to be that it has trouble leaving the desktop and its particular server market. Windows-based mobile devices are struggling, and pricing/enforcing Windows licenses for IoT devices would be a tough problem. Pay for a Windows 10 license for a Raspberry Pi? I don't see that as a mass market either.
simula67 12y ago
It is great to see Microsoft taking many steps to court hackers these days. What would convince me they have turned the corner ? 1. Windows playing well with other OS on my laptop. I updated my Windows 8 to Windows 8.1 and I could no longer boot into Linux 2. Dont use patents to stifle free software [1][2] 3. Port Internet Explorer, Microsoft Office to Linux and offer immunity for projects like Wine for reimplementing Windows API. Do not change APIs unreasonably to sabotage these projects. Let Windows compete on its own merit ( speed, performance, stabilty, backwards compatibility, hackability etc ). [1]http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2007/05/microsoft-235-patent-specific-patent-infringements-in-linux/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2007/05/microsoft-235-pat... [2]http://www.zdnet.com/article/310-microsoft-patents-used-in-android-licensing-agreements-revealed-by-chinese-gov/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/310-microsoft-patents-used-in-a...
- raverbashing 12y ago
  About 1 I kind of understand, you're installing/upgrading so something might be broken and it overrides this (not sure how it works with UEFI though), there should be an option "don't override the MBR" (or the modern equivalent) But yeah, I am skeptical about this "New Microsoft"
- archagon 12y ago
  For me, #1 would be to allow Metro apps for Windows to be developed outside the App Store.
- dghf 12y ago
  > Port Internet Explorer, Microsoft Office to Linux Office maybe, but is there any demand for IE on Linux?
  - Zardoz84 12y ago
    Web development, but you can try to use a few virtual machines to run IE 11 & 9
    - dghf 12y ago
teamhappy 12y ago
I love how bad Microsoft has made OS X and Linux look recently. They have a better UI than Debian/Ubuntu/whatever. They have better security features than both OS X and Linux. If they get the open source thing right, both OS X and Linux will (have to) improve as a direct result of that. Can't lose. // Did I miss something?
- bigstumpy 12y ago
  I wasn't aware Windows had better security than Linux. Do you have a source for this?
  - teamhappy 12y ago
    They got the code signing right very early on. ALSR is still better than on Linux (I think). The whole privilege isolation thing is neat. Feel free to google it, this shouldn't be news. Just to be clear: Linux is doing fine. OS X is a hell of a lot worse. --- I forgot to say what I actually wanted to say: I said security features, not overall security. Linux is FOSS.
    - joshstrange 12y ago
      OS X has code signing and a I think you mean ASLR not ALSR. Further OS X has ASLR the SAME YEAR as Windows (2007) according to wikipedia [0]: > Windows > Microsoft's Windows Vista (released January 2007) and later have ASLR enabled for only those executables and dynamic link libraries specifically linked to be ASLR-enabled. For compatibility, it is not enabled by default for other applications. Typically, only older software is incompatible and ASLR can be fully enabled by editing a registry entry "HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management\MoveImages", or by installing Microsoft's Enhanced Mitigation Experience Toolkit. > The locations of the heap, stack, Process Environment Block, and Thread Environment Block are also randomized. A security whitepaper from Symantec noted that ASLR in 32-bit Windows Vista may not be as robust as expected, and Microsoft has acknowledged a weakness in its implementation. > Host-based intrusion prevention systems such as WehnTrust and Ozone also offer ASLR for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 operating systems. WehnTrust is open-source. Complete details of Ozone's implementation is not available. > It was noted in February 2012 that ASLR on 32-bit Windows systems prior to Windows 8 can have its effectiveness reduced in low memory situations. Similar effect also had been achieved on Linux in the same research. The test code caused the Mac OS X 10.7.3 system to kernel panic, so it was left unclear about its ASLR behavior in this scenario. > Mac OS X > In Mac OS X Leopard 10.5 (released October 2007), Apple introduced randomization for system libraries. > In Mac OS X Lion 10.7 (released July 2011), Apple expanded their implementation to cover all applications, stating "address space layout randomization (ASLR) has been improved for all applications. It is now available for 32-bit apps (as are heap memory protections), making 64-bit and 32-bit applications more resistant to attack." > As of OS X Mountain Lion 10.8 (released July 2012) and later, the entire system including the kernel as well as kexts and zones are randomly relocated during system boot. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_space_layout_randomization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_space_layout_randomizat...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
faragon 12y ago
"New Microsoft"? So why are they still bullying with patents against Android device makers? (FAT file system, etc.)
- DiabloD3 12y ago
  Because the patent system requires you to do so else you lose the patent. The only solution to this is to stop having math and logic patents, which are already illegal under any sane interpretation of patent law: its Congress and USPTO that continue allowing these un-patents to be issued.
  - higherpurpose 12y ago
    No, you're thinking trademarks.
  - dublinben 12y ago
    They could choose to license those patents for $1 in perpetuity if they wanted. They choose to extract rent from other companies in the form of expensive licensing agreements.
- emodendroket 12y ago
  All major tech companies are doing this. The rules need to be changed.
- __Joker 12y ago
  Patents are more like, nuclear arsenals. All big companies are holding onto them, for safety against each other.
  - mmastrac 12y ago
    Unlike some of the other big players (Facebook, Google), Microsoft is actively threatening players with their patent portfolio on Android. So, no, this is not like a nuclear arsenal.
    - 12y ago
giancarlostoro 12y ago
While this would be great, I would love for Visual Studio, or an Open Source alternative to come out that runs on Windows, Mac, and Linux. Maybe for .NET Core? It doesn't have to be as heavy weight as Visual Studio, but if it can produce the same project types it would be amazing. I know we have MonoDevelop, but that has to be the buggiest IDE I've used in a long time, also there is definitely SharpDevelop, but it is Windows only. Heck, even if Visual Studio came to Linux as a proprietary binary I would still appreciate that. It's quite the product.
chiph 12y ago
One of the reasons why OS/2 wasn't open-sourced is that it contained several 3rd party libraries whose license wouldn't permit IBM to release their source, and IBM didn't want to go to the trouble of getting releases from them. I wonder if there's an issue like this that would preclude Microsoft from releasing the source for Windows.
- cesarb 12y ago
  They could always do a "partial open source", where DLLs with license problems are kept closed-source. There's precedent for that; I recall a successful open sourcing of an old game engine where the third-party audio library it used couldn't be released. In fact, I could argue they are already slowly going a "partial open source" route, with their gradual open sourcing of parts of the dotnet runtime.
  - jebblue 12y ago
    Exactly, pieces that would be too difficult for them to Open Source I think communities would gather to build those out to form a complete Open Source Windows.
antoncohen 12y ago
That comment was taken out of context. Wired wrote an entire article about an offhand remark. I was at ChefConf, the comment was made during a panel discussion on open source [1]. On the panel there was an engineer from Facebook, an IT Director from Gap, and Mark Russinovich the CTO of Azure (note Azure, not Windows). The conversation went something like this (paraphrasing): Moderator: "Microsoft used to really suck, and they were really anti-open source. But now they are open sourcing things like CLR on GitHub. I bet one thing they will never open source is Windows." Mark: "You never know, it's definitely possible. Crazy stuff happens." Nothing more on the subject. [1] https://chefconf2015a.sched.org/event/00710f4fed0e8b617aef564a326e1b04# https://chefconf2015a.sched.org/event/00710f4fed0e8b617aef56...
- Random_BSD_Geek 12y ago
  I was also there, and I had a similar reaction to seeing the Wired article. (Sensationalist, whole article written on a 30-second exchange, click-bait, etc.) That said, here's how I remember it: 1. Metz: ... would Microsoft ever open source Windows? 2. Crowd: Cheers. Applause. People shouting "Do it!" 3. Russinovich: You never know, it's definitely possible. Crazy stuff happens. I found the middle part more interesting than anything else. It's a perilous road to be sure but I think Microsoft may underestimate how much good something like open sourcing Windows could do them. I believe all the talks were filmed. Hopefully the video gets posted.
- keithwarren 12y ago
  While I do appreciate the context, simply putting Mark Russinovich in a box that says he is an Azure guy, ignores history. He is probably one of, if not the most authoritative Windows person on the planet. He chose to do Azure fabric stuff because at his level, you get your pick of interesting projects. Taking the Windows code base and moving to to cloud scale was probably a pretty unique challenge. So yes, while open sourcing windows would be a massive undertaking involving nearly every level of management and buy in at Microsoft - Mark R would carry a big stick in such a discussion.
- runjake 12y ago
  > Mark Russinovich the CTO of Azure (note Azure, not Windows). I agree with everything you said, but it's important to note here that Russinovich is a well-known Windows reverse engineer, the founder of SysInternals, and the author of the Windows Internals books (these are akin to the Design & Implementation of BSD books, but for Windows). He's something of a deity amongst Windows kernel hackers. I also believe he pops on HN now and again.
mrfusion 12y ago
I always wonder what would have happened if popular products had been open sourced in their heyday. What if Windows had been open sourced around the time Linux was growing up? Windows would be on every platform in the world. What if Flash had been open sourced in the early 2000s? HTML5 would have never been created. In either case these companies would have been in charge of global standards. I'm not sure if that would have been better for them or not?
jebblue 12y ago
I never thought I'd read Microsoft thinking about Open Sourcing Windows. I'd consider getting back into Microsoft technologies if they did it.
jebblue 12y ago
As a side note, I let my finger rest on the keyboard and pressed some key, the whole page went solid white and a massive edit cursor appeared.
danbruc 12y ago
I am not sure that I want Windows open sourced, there is actually some value in not being open source. Having strong control over a system makes coherent design decisions much easier, helps avoid fragmentation and simplifies compatibility. You can see all this at play in the wild - hundreds of Linux distributions, competing GUI frameworks or the relative ease of targeting a limited number of gaming console hardware options or the pretty coherent design of the .NET Framework. There are real costs behind all that, when developing and maintaining several competing options as well as when deciding between or targeting them. Easily being able to look at the Windows source code would probably be a nice thing, but I am not sure if I would value this high enough to risk ending with a fragmented ecosystem a decade or so in the future.
- dhimes 12y ago
  You can be open source and still maintain tight control over the system. Just don't let anybody hack the official repo. Open source doesn't have to be open development. It would be nice for third-party devs to be able to see the source to develop better apps. That was the problem with MS historically- they only allowed you certain hooks, and if you had a product they were interested in competing with, your hooks never seemed to work quite properly. Then their product would come out and work quite well with their system. IIRC, an example of this was RealPlayer vs MediaPlayer. Also, open source allows security audits and faster fixes, etc., at least in principle.
  - danbruc 12y ago
    I have to disagree. There are two use cases, reading and changing the source. When Microsoft only allows very limited contributions to the source it either becomes effectively read-only or it will get forked. If it gets forked they will sooner or later face the decision to either compromise on their design decisions in order to maintain compatibility with forks or they start going down the fragmentation road leading to compatibility issues. Only reading the source is a different story. It should actually be a exceptional use case, for example for debugging, but besides that you should of course usually not worry about implementation details or even take dependencies on them. And Microsoft's documentation of the public surface is pretty good and therefore there is rarely a need to look at the source to understand the functionality. Finally at least for research purpose it has been possible for a long time to obtain a copy of the source, not sure if this is possible or how hard it would be for non-research purposes.
mkhpalm 12y ago
It doesn't have to be open source but making "the garden" readily available (dirt cheap or free) is Microsoft's only hope to avoid fading into oblivion on windows products. OSX still requires expensive apple hardware... Which seems like an opportunity to me.
- walshemj 12y ago
  Have you tried to work with OSX with more than one or two macs and using OSX server - it's hopeless basic functionality doesn't work.
ChikkaChiChi 12y ago
It is also definitely possible that my keyboard will pass through my desk while I am typing this comment. Possibility and probability are two completely different things.

152 points by Libertatea 12y ago

Nothing stopping them from doing a RHEL/CentOS setup - they open the code, keep the trademarks to themselves, if you want 'Windows' you have to pay for support. People who don't want support are probably pirating Windows anyway.

brudgers 12y ago
Among the possible hurdles to open sourcing Windows are any dependencies on 3rd party code with incompatible licence terms.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- cwyers 12y ago
  I think he meant selling Windows under an RHEL model, not making their own Linux distribution.
- minthd 12y ago
  >> Current Windows software wouldn't be compatible with this, there is no prior lock in... Why ?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- Thev00d00 12y ago
  I don't think that is what nailer was saying, I read it as if MS where to open source Windows, they could then run the openWin project in the same way as Redhat run things now.
- asadlionpk 12y ago
  I think current software will be compatible with the open source version. Since they won't likely be swapping the entire kernel.
louhike 12y ago
I agree it could be an interesting move. But forks could be dangerous if they want to keep their predominance on the home market.
minthd 12y ago
But they'd be exposed to competition on support, and even today, external tools offer better support than windows in many case(for example security micro-virtualization like qubes/bromium) and many offer cheaper stuff - all this while the code is closed. If the platform will be open, opening a huge market for support ,Microsoft will have a very tough life.
raldu 12y ago
The point about piracy is a strong enough reason for freeing the source code. Why not just let people buy quality support instead of some blurb of binary data? It also would be interesting to see how many different forks emerge out of the original code base. A kind of fork comes to my mind is a specialized Windows build for high performance gaming. Gamers would be dedicated enough to build community support around their fork, then Microsoft can fight over a monopoly on "better support" instead.

WDCDev 12y ago

I get the feeling MS is heading towards Windows running on a MS Linux kernel at some point. An MS linux build, that supports .NET (CoreCLR) and a true cross platform windowing library (WPF) would be serious force to contend with in both the enterprise and consumer markets.

danieldk 12y ago
I get the feeling MS is heading towards Windows running on a MS Linux kernel at some point. What would be the point? The NT kernel has a newer architecture than the Linux kernel and build upon Dave Cutler's experience with VMS (which could already benefit from learning from Unix). Open sourcing the NT kernel does make a lot of sense though, since it would be easier to integrate Windows in Xen, KVM, and other virtualization infrastructure. They will probably end up taking an Apple-like approach. Open bits where it is strategic and keep some bits closed to sell Windows licenses. It 'only' took a new CEO to do the rational thing.
- nly 12y ago
  "newer architecture" doesn't really mean much. Microsoft have to maintain a more rigid overall structure because they are committed to third-party binary compatibility wrt drivers and such. As a result, major architectural shifts in things like networking or graphics (XP -> Vista) cause a lot of pain. It's a trade-off. Linux looks floppy architecturally because it can afford to be.
- userulluipeste 12y ago
  "Open sourcing the NT kernel does make a lot of sense though, since it would be easier to integrate Windows in Xen, KVM, and other virtualization infrastructure." If you're interested in an open-source NT kernel, you might be interested in ReactOS. Although their target comprises development of the entire OS, their main task was the NT kernel and "the glue" with existing parts of Win32 sub-system developed by Wine.
brudgers 12y ago
The odds that Windows will become based on Linux seems pretty low to me. There are advantages of Windows architecture, e.g. PowerShell and similar reflection technologies that are unlikely to be implemented in *nix OS's. Engineering tradeoffs happen on both sides.

bonsai80 12y ago

I thought April Fool's day was on Wednesday. Now I'm not sure which is pulling my leg: Every single fake story from April 1, or this? Interesting things sure have been going on since the LA Clippers changed ownership!

bobajeff 12y ago

If they open sourced something important to Windows like the NT Kernel or DirectX then I'll believe they are serious about open sourcing it.

snarfy 12y ago

I don't want Windows. I just want Visual Studio.

vanattab 12y ago
Visual studio with the vsVim plugin is a pleasure to use.

spdegabrielle 12y ago

Of course it's possible. That doesn't mean it will happen.

farresito 12y ago

I'm really liking the way Microsoft is going. While there are quite a lot of things they need to improve on, they are becoming more and more open, and I have a feeling we will eventually see an open source Windows version.

wantab 12y ago

I think this is positively maybe almost definitely possible. We've heard these vaporware statements from Microsoft in the past. I'm used to them. I guess they're starting them up again. As a reminder, "open source" doesn't mean free, in case anyone goes off on that tangent.

anewhnaccount 12y ago
Even a "shared source" NT kernel would be very cool.
jordigh 12y ago
> As a reminder, "open source" doesn't mean free, in case anyone goes off on that tangent. As a reminder, yes it does: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/02/msg01641.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/02/msg01641.html I don't know where people got the idea that open source is not a synonym for free software. It was always meant to be a synonym. http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgotten-about-open-source/ http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgot... I'm sure Microsoft understands what open source means, because they don't call their source-visible licenses "open source". "Shared source" is the term they invented for their non-free, source-visible licenses. If they are talking about open source in an article, I do think they really do mean open source.
- castratikron 12y ago
  >I don't know where people got the idea that open source is not a synonym for free software. It was always meant to be a synonym. Probably from rms himself. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
  - jordigh 12y ago
    He also says it's a synonym: “Free software.” “Open source.” If it's the same software, does it matter which name you use? It refers to the same software, but one emphasises one part or another. It's like saying "developing country" to emphasise that supposedly it's working on improving or "third world country" to emphasise that it's not part of the two big warring Cold-war era groups, but the two terms refer to the same thing.

yodsanklai 12y ago

I don't know if they still do it, but some time ago, Microsoft used to "lend" Windows source code to some academics that worked on operating systems.

venomsnake 12y ago
The code is not that valuable anyway. No one will be able to steal IP from them, very few people will have the acumen to build their distro, so they have nothing to lose. And in the case that people find innovative uses for windows - hey - pay up.

UUMMUU 12y ago

I know it won't but I would love it if they would make Spartan based off Webkit. (Edit: or Gecko or something else with a bit of traction.) Edit 2: I fear that if they start from scratch and put it on every Windows 10 machine it's going to be feature incomplete from the start and force web developer hacks just like IE does now.

seba_dos1 12y ago
I wouldn't. There's already a threat of Webkit's monoculture on the web, we don't need to make it worse. If you'd like to see Spartan based on some already existing free software engine, then go for Gecko; however, another big player on the engine market won't hurt, especially after Opera went Webkit (well, Blink technically, but it's not a big difference yet).
- UUMMUU 12y ago
  Good point. As a front end developer I just am still wary of what Microsoft produces as a browser just because IE left such a bad taste in my mouth and I really love what Opera did with it.

higherpurpose 12y ago

Put up or shut up?

Avalaxy 12y ago

"Earlier this year, Microsoft open sourced a tool called .NET, a popular way of building online applications, and the hope is that this will expand the tool’s reach. " Shivers...

vanattab 12y ago
Why the shivers? Have you used .NET? I my experience visual studios + .net framework is a pleasure to work with.
- Avalaxy 12y ago
  That was not my point, I'm a fulltime .NET dev and love it. My point was they way they described it as a "tool" instead of a framework. I don't get why this has to be downvoted.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    A framework is a kind of tool, and Wired isn't focussed on an audience of developers and people for whom the particular type of tool ("framework") would be all that meaningful (and those for whome it would be already know what .NET is, and wouldn't be hurt by the less-specific description.)
  - ZenoArrow 12y ago
    FWIW, I didn't downvote you, but I imagine the people who did misunderstood your intention, and I can see why as shivers implies you were creeped out, which is sufficiently different than joking about the accuracy of the article. No problem though, better luck next time!

jkot 12y ago

There is already opensource Windows implementation: Wine. Perhaps they could contribute there. In the meantime Windows 10 certification no longer requires option to disable secure boot. It might not be possible to install alternative operating systems on new computers.

jordigh 12y ago
I guess ReactOS is really more like an OS. Wine is just implementing the Windows API, not a whole OS.
- giancarlostoro 12y ago
  Even so, having used Play On Linux (I guess a "Wine fork") just to run Flash on Linux where it wouldn't I've had positive results thus far. ReactOS is nice, but it's a whole OS, and it's not necessarily the greatest option just yet, plus you wouldn't get to run many Linux packages.
  - spystath 12y ago
    PlayOnLinux is just a (very useful) wrapper around wine. It uses stock wine and you can even use multiple versions of wine with it.
farresito 12y ago
Doesn't really matter to much whether Wine exists or not. People are not arguing about whether Windows software runs on Linux or not. What people actually want (or would like, I guess) is for Windows to be open source. They would like to be able to contribute, maybe, and to avoid closed software.
emodendroket 12y ago
Win32 is not Windows; the latter encompasses many more things.

hsnewman 12y ago

Open source <> GPL or BSD license. Yes open sourcing would improve quality with more eyes on the code, but Microsoft isn't going to give it away.

jordigh 12y ago
Open source means free software means freedom. Although in the past MSFT has used non-free, source-visible licenses, they seem to understand very well what "open source" means. I don't think they use their "shared source" licenses for new things. If they are serious about freeing Windows, I'm sure they will do it under a free license. Edit: Sigh, downvotes already, so here is your reminder of where open source comes from and what it means: http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgotten-about-open-source/ http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgot...
- peatmoss 12y ago
  That's right. Open Source typically means OSI approved license. Sadly, Open Source gets used as a term to refer to things that are inclusive in some way, or where access to source code is given without the bundle of rights associated with OSI approved licenses. As RMS says, all Free Software is open source. I believe the converse statement to be true always or nearly always all the time. Though the licenses are the same, the guiding philosophies are different. Open Source tends to focus on the benefits of openness, such as quality resulting from many reviewers. By contrast, RMS and the Free software folks will tell you that quality isn't the primary aim--the 4 freedoms are. In terms of licenses, Copyleft licenses are a subset of Free and Open Source licenses that restrict the ability to make derived works non-Free/Open. E.g. BSD is Free software, but not Copyleft.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    Wait a second, since when did OSI (or any group in particular, for that matter) become the ultimate arbiter on what "open source" means? I'm not saying this to be argumentative - I don't like the idea of something like that in the hands of a bureaucracy.

bayesianhorse 12y ago

As far as I understand it, the business case for not open sourcing Windows is loosing merit. Linux is a very advanced operating system, in many ways surpassing current Windows versions - technically speaking. The problem for Windows seems to be that it has trouble leaving the desktop and its particular server market. Windows-based mobile devices are struggling, and pricing/enforcing Windows licenses for IoT devices would be a tough problem. Pay for a Windows 10 license for a Raspberry Pi? I don't see that as a mass market either.

simula67 12y ago

It is great to see Microsoft taking many steps to court hackers these days. What would convince me they have turned the corner ? 1. Windows playing well with other OS on my laptop. I updated my Windows 8 to Windows 8.1 and I could no longer boot into Linux 2. Dont use patents to stifle free software [1][2] 3. Port Internet Explorer, Microsoft Office to Linux and offer immunity for projects like Wine for reimplementing Windows API. Do not change APIs unreasonably to sabotage these projects. Let Windows compete on its own merit ( speed, performance, stabilty, backwards compatibility, hackability etc ). [1]http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2007/05/microsoft-235-patent-specific-patent-infringements-in-linux/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2007/05/microsoft-235-pat... [2]http://www.zdnet.com/article/310-microsoft-patents-used-in-android-licensing-agreements-revealed-by-chinese-gov/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/310-microsoft-patents-used-in-a...

raverbashing 12y ago
About 1 I kind of understand, you're installing/upgrading so something might be broken and it overrides this (not sure how it works with UEFI though), there should be an option "don't override the MBR" (or the modern equivalent) But yeah, I am skeptical about this "New Microsoft"
archagon 12y ago
For me, #1 would be to allow Metro apps for Windows to be developed outside the App Store.
dghf 12y ago
> Port Internet Explorer, Microsoft Office to Linux Office maybe, but is there any demand for IE on Linux?
- Zardoz84 12y ago
  Web development, but you can try to use a few virtual machines to run IE 11 & 9
  - dghf 12y ago

teamhappy 12y ago

I love how bad Microsoft has made OS X and Linux look recently. They have a better UI than Debian/Ubuntu/whatever. They have better security features than both OS X and Linux. If they get the open source thing right, both OS X and Linux will (have to) improve as a direct result of that. Can't lose. // Did I miss something?

bigstumpy 12y ago
I wasn't aware Windows had better security than Linux. Do you have a source for this?
- teamhappy 12y ago
  They got the code signing right very early on. ALSR is still better than on Linux (I think). The whole privilege isolation thing is neat. Feel free to google it, this shouldn't be news. Just to be clear: Linux is doing fine. OS X is a hell of a lot worse. --- I forgot to say what I actually wanted to say: I said security features, not overall security. Linux is FOSS.
  - joshstrange 12y ago
    OS X has code signing and a I think you mean ASLR not ALSR. Further OS X has ASLR the SAME YEAR as Windows (2007) according to wikipedia [0]: > Windows > Microsoft's Windows Vista (released January 2007) and later have ASLR enabled for only those executables and dynamic link libraries specifically linked to be ASLR-enabled. For compatibility, it is not enabled by default for other applications. Typically, only older software is incompatible and ASLR can be fully enabled by editing a registry entry "HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management\MoveImages", or by installing Microsoft's Enhanced Mitigation Experience Toolkit. > The locations of the heap, stack, Process Environment Block, and Thread Environment Block are also randomized. A security whitepaper from Symantec noted that ASLR in 32-bit Windows Vista may not be as robust as expected, and Microsoft has acknowledged a weakness in its implementation. > Host-based intrusion prevention systems such as WehnTrust and Ozone also offer ASLR for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 operating systems. WehnTrust is open-source. Complete details of Ozone's implementation is not available. > It was noted in February 2012 that ASLR on 32-bit Windows systems prior to Windows 8 can have its effectiveness reduced in low memory situations. Similar effect also had been achieved on Linux in the same research. The test code caused the Mac OS X 10.7.3 system to kernel panic, so it was left unclear about its ASLR behavior in this scenario. > Mac OS X > In Mac OS X Leopard 10.5 (released October 2007), Apple introduced randomization for system libraries. > In Mac OS X Lion 10.7 (released July 2011), Apple expanded their implementation to cover all applications, stating "address space layout randomization (ASLR) has been improved for all applications. It is now available for 32-bit apps (as are heap memory protections), making 64-bit and 32-bit applications more resistant to attack." > As of OS X Mountain Lion 10.8 (released July 2012) and later, the entire system including the kernel as well as kexts and zones are randomly relocated during system boot. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_space_layout_randomization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_space_layout_randomizat...

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

faragon 12y ago

"New Microsoft"? So why are they still bullying with patents against Android device makers? (FAT file system, etc.)

DiabloD3 12y ago
Because the patent system requires you to do so else you lose the patent. The only solution to this is to stop having math and logic patents, which are already illegal under any sane interpretation of patent law: its Congress and USPTO that continue allowing these un-patents to be issued.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  No, you're thinking trademarks.
- dublinben 12y ago
  They could choose to license those patents for $1 in perpetuity if they wanted. They choose to extract rent from other companies in the form of expensive licensing agreements.
emodendroket 12y ago
All major tech companies are doing this. The rules need to be changed.
__Joker 12y ago
Patents are more like, nuclear arsenals. All big companies are holding onto them, for safety against each other.
- mmastrac 12y ago
  Unlike some of the other big players (Facebook, Google), Microsoft is actively threatening players with their patent portfolio on Android. So, no, this is not like a nuclear arsenal.
  - 12y ago

giancarlostoro 12y ago

While this would be great, I would love for Visual Studio, or an Open Source alternative to come out that runs on Windows, Mac, and Linux. Maybe for .NET Core? It doesn't have to be as heavy weight as Visual Studio, but if it can produce the same project types it would be amazing. I know we have MonoDevelop, but that has to be the buggiest IDE I've used in a long time, also there is definitely SharpDevelop, but it is Windows only. Heck, even if Visual Studio came to Linux as a proprietary binary I would still appreciate that. It's quite the product.

chiph 12y ago

One of the reasons why OS/2 wasn't open-sourced is that it contained several 3rd party libraries whose license wouldn't permit IBM to release their source, and IBM didn't want to go to the trouble of getting releases from them. I wonder if there's an issue like this that would preclude Microsoft from releasing the source for Windows.

cesarb 12y ago
They could always do a "partial open source", where DLLs with license problems are kept closed-source. There's precedent for that; I recall a successful open sourcing of an old game engine where the third-party audio library it used couldn't be released. In fact, I could argue they are already slowly going a "partial open source" route, with their gradual open sourcing of parts of the dotnet runtime.
- jebblue 12y ago
  Exactly, pieces that would be too difficult for them to Open Source I think communities would gather to build those out to form a complete Open Source Windows.

antoncohen 12y ago

That comment was taken out of context. Wired wrote an entire article about an offhand remark. I was at ChefConf, the comment was made during a panel discussion on open source [1]. On the panel there was an engineer from Facebook, an IT Director from Gap, and Mark Russinovich the CTO of Azure (note Azure, not Windows). The conversation went something like this (paraphrasing): Moderator: "Microsoft used to really suck, and they were really anti-open source. But now they are open sourcing things like CLR on GitHub. I bet one thing they will never open source is Windows." Mark: "You never know, it's definitely possible. Crazy stuff happens." Nothing more on the subject. [1] https://chefconf2015a.sched.org/event/00710f4fed0e8b617aef564a326e1b04# https://chefconf2015a.sched.org/event/00710f4fed0e8b617aef56...

Random_BSD_Geek 12y ago
I was also there, and I had a similar reaction to seeing the Wired article. (Sensationalist, whole article written on a 30-second exchange, click-bait, etc.) That said, here's how I remember it: 1. Metz: ... would Microsoft ever open source Windows? 2. Crowd: Cheers. Applause. People shouting "Do it!" 3. Russinovich: You never know, it's definitely possible. Crazy stuff happens. I found the middle part more interesting than anything else. It's a perilous road to be sure but I think Microsoft may underestimate how much good something like open sourcing Windows could do them. I believe all the talks were filmed. Hopefully the video gets posted.
keithwarren 12y ago
While I do appreciate the context, simply putting Mark Russinovich in a box that says he is an Azure guy, ignores history. He is probably one of, if not the most authoritative Windows person on the planet. He chose to do Azure fabric stuff because at his level, you get your pick of interesting projects. Taking the Windows code base and moving to to cloud scale was probably a pretty unique challenge. So yes, while open sourcing windows would be a massive undertaking involving nearly every level of management and buy in at Microsoft - Mark R would carry a big stick in such a discussion.
runjake 12y ago
> Mark Russinovich the CTO of Azure (note Azure, not Windows). I agree with everything you said, but it's important to note here that Russinovich is a well-known Windows reverse engineer, the founder of SysInternals, and the author of the Windows Internals books (these are akin to the Design & Implementation of BSD books, but for Windows). He's something of a deity amongst Windows kernel hackers. I also believe he pops on HN now and again.

mrfusion 12y ago

I always wonder what would have happened if popular products had been open sourced in their heyday. What if Windows had been open sourced around the time Linux was growing up? Windows would be on every platform in the world. What if Flash had been open sourced in the early 2000s? HTML5 would have never been created. In either case these companies would have been in charge of global standards. I'm not sure if that would have been better for them or not?

jebblue 12y ago

I never thought I'd read Microsoft thinking about Open Sourcing Windows. I'd consider getting back into Microsoft technologies if they did it.

jebblue 12y ago

As a side note, I let my finger rest on the keyboard and pressed some key, the whole page went solid white and a massive edit cursor appeared.

danbruc 12y ago

I am not sure that I want Windows open sourced, there is actually some value in not being open source. Having strong control over a system makes coherent design decisions much easier, helps avoid fragmentation and simplifies compatibility. You can see all this at play in the wild - hundreds of Linux distributions, competing GUI frameworks or the relative ease of targeting a limited number of gaming console hardware options or the pretty coherent design of the .NET Framework. There are real costs behind all that, when developing and maintaining several competing options as well as when deciding between or targeting them. Easily being able to look at the Windows source code would probably be a nice thing, but I am not sure if I would value this high enough to risk ending with a fragmented ecosystem a decade or so in the future.

dhimes 12y ago
You can be open source and still maintain tight control over the system. Just don't let anybody hack the official repo. Open source doesn't have to be open development. It would be nice for third-party devs to be able to see the source to develop better apps. That was the problem with MS historically- they only allowed you certain hooks, and if you had a product they were interested in competing with, your hooks never seemed to work quite properly. Then their product would come out and work quite well with their system. IIRC, an example of this was RealPlayer vs MediaPlayer. Also, open source allows security audits and faster fixes, etc., at least in principle.
- danbruc 12y ago
  I have to disagree. There are two use cases, reading and changing the source. When Microsoft only allows very limited contributions to the source it either becomes effectively read-only or it will get forked. If it gets forked they will sooner or later face the decision to either compromise on their design decisions in order to maintain compatibility with forks or they start going down the fragmentation road leading to compatibility issues. Only reading the source is a different story. It should actually be a exceptional use case, for example for debugging, but besides that you should of course usually not worry about implementation details or even take dependencies on them. And Microsoft's documentation of the public surface is pretty good and therefore there is rarely a need to look at the source to understand the functionality. Finally at least for research purpose it has been possible for a long time to obtain a copy of the source, not sure if this is possible or how hard it would be for non-research purposes.

mkhpalm 12y ago

It doesn't have to be open source but making "the garden" readily available (dirt cheap or free) is Microsoft's only hope to avoid fading into oblivion on windows products. OSX still requires expensive apple hardware... Which seems like an opportunity to me.

walshemj 12y ago
Have you tried to work with OSX with more than one or two macs and using OSX server - it's hopeless basic functionality doesn't work.

ChikkaChiChi 12y ago

It is also definitely possible that my keyboard will pass through my desk while I am typing this comment. Possibility and probability are two completely different things.