Open Windows?

by Mike Gunderloy - Jun. 04, 2008Comments (6)

Writing in today's Wall Street Journal, technology columnist Lee Gomes has a series of modest suggestions for Microsoft as they try to frame the course of Windows 7. These include such common-sense ideas as cutting down the number of SKUs and implementing Time Machine-like system recovery features. But one of his suggestions seems even more outlandish: that Windows should become some sort of crazy open source software.

To be precise, Gomes suggests opening up Windows under some sort of "look but don't touch" license:

Open-source software such as Linux is traditionally seen as the opposite of proprietary software from the likes of Microsoft and Apple. But that's a false dichotomy. Why can't Windows be proprietary, for-profit and copy-protected -- while at the same time be open for user control and inspection?

Clearly this is not open source  as most in the open source community would describe it. In particular, we tend to agree with the Free Software Foundation that redistribution and improvement of the code are among the essential software freedoms. This, and not merely the ability to scrutinize code, are what sets free software at odds with proprietary software.

It doesn't seem that opening up the Windows source code would necessarily be good for the open source community. Do we really want people reading and learning from 40 million lines of source code that has been a continuing source of security issues and mystery crashes? Beyond that, it would be difficult to show independent invention of an algorithm by anyone with access to that same algorithm in the Windows source code, which would further muddy the intellectual property waters.

Fortunately, it seems pretty unlikely that Microsoft will listen to a lone technology columnist on this front. And that's just as well.


Browse Blog

D J uses OStatic to support Open Source, ask and answer questions and stay informed. What about you?



6 Comments
 

This is not a new suggestion. It would not help them a bit.

0 Votes

It WOULD be interesting to see how they've piled it on thick across the code base!

0 Votes

@Jeffrey - why do you think it would not help them a bit? It would be a start to see how they are handling certain issues and how they have engineered components. Peeling back the covers is always better than getting a black box, no?

0 Votes

Mike, I think your premises are shaky. Not having access to the source code because it may contain bugs that would mislead people? Come on. It's not as if the Microsoft Programmers are dumb. Writing an Operating System is hard work, and bugs in there that can have more eyes on them will see better solutions. It is not as if Linux or other Open Source applications do not have bugs. Have they led people to become 'bad' programmers? I don't think so. You have the world surveying your work (well, in theory), and with enough eyes on it, the work would be caught.

Now, IANAL, but seeing source code and releasing it into the open would allow people to innovate in new areas, as opposed to trying to redo something Microsoft may have done. Sure, it definitely does open up the question to 'stealing' source, which is probably the larger concern. Increasing visibility only adds to knowledge and stimulates innovation, rather than the other way.

0 Votes

I'm not impressed.

1) Timemachine is a "me too" of Microsoft's ShadowCopy feature.

2) Microsoft has a license called something like "Microsoft Permissive License" that they already use in place of a real open-source license.

0 Votes

yes - i agree - microsoft should stay completely closed source because otherwise they would be something other than completely closed source and that would be bad because i'm not sure why i just type stuff on a blog that makes zero sense.

0 Votes
Share Your Comments

If you are a member, to have your comment attributed to you. If you are not yet a member, Join OStatic and help the Open Source community by sharing your thoughts, answering user questions and providing reviews and alternatives for projects.