The network has been filled with articles spreading a rumor about a possible open-source Windows, that is, open source. Given the new management changes at Microsoft and the new direction that the company is taking by opening many of its products that were previously proprietary, now it seems that there is great enthusiasm from many to see also open the Windows operating system.
The former leader and successor of Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer roundly rejected the benefits of free or open source software. Now, after the company's 40th anniversary, there seems to be an internal debate about whether it would be good to open and publish the Windows code. And all thanks to the new approach that the company has taken after the arrival of Satya Nadella.
The truth is that it has been seen how Microsoft will give Windows 10 (formerly Windows 9) for free to users of the company's operating systems in previous versions, and it will even open your hand with pirated copies. Something unthinkable a few years ago, when the company fought hard against piracy. This gratuitousness will increase the number of computers with Windows 10, but I don't think it will end with Mac OS X (also free, although you have to pay for apple hardware) and Linux.
Mark Russinovich, in charge of the department that runs Microsoft Azure, is one of the main workers who is in favor of creating a free Windows. But against it he has company executives and the traditional rejection of free software that the Microsoft company has had as a house brand for decades.
My personal opinion:
Well, so far what has been commented on the network. Now my personal opinion is clear. I don't think this is possible, unless in the short term, since Microsoft gets the biggest graphical monetization to Windows and Office, its two flagship products that generate most of the company's profits. And Microsoft is a company that historically has thought more about money than its customers ...
Yo i think windows 10 will be a test whether a free Windows would be good or not. With the free license for Windows 10 updates, it will be seen if it attracts a large audience or on the contrary, it will not win too many new followers. Anyway, I think that Windows 10 will not be free for everyone, you will have to pay a license for new computers and if you buy it without having previously been a Microsoft user or that is my impression until something is confirmed ...
With gain followers I mean not only that users who currently have a Windows XP or Vista or 7 or 8 operating system go to 10, but also to attract other users of operating systems such as Mac OS X, GNU / Linux, FreeBSD, etc. And I see that frankly difficult for various reasons.
On one hand, Apple users They are macadictos and no matter how much you offer them, they will not change their opinion and even less the MacTaliban that exist in some spheres of the network, defending the apple products as if they received money from the company. On the other hand, Mac OS X is a very good platform that is now also free and although it is not open, you can settle for the Darwin project code.
On the other hand, there are also fans in the Linux world and the FreeBSD world You are also not going to convince them overnight if they feel comfortable with their platform. In addition, most Linux users not only like that it is free and open source, there are many other reasons such as all that Unix heritage that makes it spectacular.
And I don't think Microsoft starts from scratch with the code and does a new Unix operating system to brush up on all those Windows NT problems which, despite having improved over DOS, is still insufficient. In fact, they already had a Unix operating system, they had the license to develop their Apple-registered * nix with Mac OS X, but they finally got rid of it.
I speak of xenix, which they eventually yielded to SCO. And it did so when it signed the agreement with IBM to develop the OS / 2 operating system together and from which it drew for the Windows NT kernel. He could not see the potential of a Unix and if he had chosen to continue with the development of Xenix for the desktop instead of Windows NT, perhaps now he would have many more followers, or at least that is what I think.
And to finish, I think that if they finally decide to offer the free software, it might not be crazy. open source code and get rid of work. Let me explain, if the Windows license is free, and they do not sell hardware as well as Apple, Microsoft's profits would sink, since they would not enter the huge amounts of money that they enter so far and they would also have to continue investing in the development of their products.
That is not feasible, but if you offer a free product and open it, you get rid of the investment in development, since you leave it in the hands of the community and in a more altruistic way, although Microsoft itself continues to be involved and develop to some extent. the product. Or maybe play both sides, open a project of a base operating system for others to develop the code freely, and then integrate certain ideas into the closed operating system. openWindows and on the other hand offer a closed Windows.
Now, thinking coldly, it would even be very useful for users of other operating systems. For example, if Microsoft decides to open its code, that would allow a better understanding of the system and would bring great benefits for projects like Wine, or take parts of code that you like or technologies that interest to incorporate them into other free operating systems, etc.
What do you think?
8 comments, leave yours
The article is very good and I think it is something to think about, I think Linux would be the most benefited in the event that this event occurred
I believe in the possibility that Microsoft gives the option to Windows users to upgrade to Windows 10 for free, but I see it impossible for them to give away the licenses.
I have been using Linux for years and for me the problem is not the license (I have always had pirated windows), my reasons for changing were for performance, stability, memory management, functionality ... etc
I really doubt that windows will end up giving it away
I am not an authority on the matter by any means, but it seems to me that Microsoft is talking about the possibility of going to Open Source, which is not the same as Free Software at all. Let's think about it. An "Open" Windows would bring water to the mill of the developers, both software and hardware, allowing them access to the implementation of the system, thus reducing the costs of technical support, among other potential advantages. All this without getting free Free Software and without losing control of its patents and licenses.
Other advantages of opening the Windows code would be, in my opinion:
- The possibility for the developer community to provide bug fixes.
- System audit to detect back doors and other suspicions (After Snowden this is imperative).
- The development of the underlying technology in the platform would be accelerated.
Ultimately, this movement, if it materializes, would not be detrimental to other ecosystems, but in favor of strengthening Windows as the most widespread platform.
I agree with you. Perhaps a model like Red Hat or Novell / SuSE is a choice for Microsoft, that is, open source software but not free.
I also agree with you, right now I am on trial as an Insider of the W10 both desktop and mobile. It would seem excellent that they take a System like Red Hat, and these days they say that they would already be working on free updates with a base name "Redstone". This would be a copy of the canonical upgradeable builds system ... but it seems to me a progress that Windows users and only capable windows do not understand well (if it is constantly updating since there are many in the world windows that walk with windows update disabled)
Very good article! And I totally agree with you!
In my 29 years as a computer scientist, NEVER… EVER… I have seen M $ take a step without thinking about his earnings before anything else. So if win10 is free, it will be because we do not see that M $ is involved.