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 683
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by autumnlover
by autumnlover on Thu 14th Feb 2008 00:33 UTC
autumnlover
Member since:
2007-04-12

About open sourcing Windows - no, because it will turn that (more or less) standardised Windows environment into chaos we all know from Linux world.

First of all, I would consider removing all WGA and activation procedures from Windows. Microsoft came to power without it (I mean pre-XP era) and certainly could manage now without it. It is widely known that such procedures hurt legitimate users in the first place. Crackers still can bypass that procedures, so it is endless mouse-and-cat game. Maintain that procedures is certainly very costly and resource-consuming process and dropping it would be great relief and cost-saving for Microsoft. And - more importantly - huge and very positive marketing and PR surge. And also terrible blow for their competitors. (Linux and Apple mainly). People know activation and WGA well and certainly hate it.

Reply Score: 1