posted by camo on Tue 12th Feb 2008 04:03
Conversations Having a good think last night about this very question. Apart from the obvious 'money spending answers', what would you change about their software (Windows especially), licensing issues, etc, and would you open source it?

Personally, the first thing I would do was to get rid of windows activation (grrrr..) and relax the license to allow for use on more than one computer, but only on computers that the licensed user owns (or maybe family owned computers), and only for non-commercial-use.

Would I open source Windows? Not at first, but I would open source Windows after seeing the pitchforks and torches of the shareholders as they break down my fence chanting <insert profanity here> as my last dying wish.
Permalink for comment 663
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Hmm...
by righard on Tue 12th Feb 2008 15:42 UTC
Member since:

You are/might be boosting two parts of Microsoft, so at least one part needs to be "deboosted" what would you choice. I'd choice Live. Actually I'd withdraw entirely from it and concentrated more on actual OS's.

To bad opensourcing is not possible, not without mass layoffs and rebuilding Microsoft from the ground up. It would be better then to give Balmer absolute power, watch Microsoft collapse will starting an own company on there bad reputation.

ReplyParent Score: 1