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 685
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Let me see...
by Downix on Thu 14th Feb 2008 11:25 UTC
Member since:

Precisely, plus would stop the impression as the "big bad monopolist OS vendor" altho I'd expect the beginning of a lawsuit as the big bad monopolist office suite vendor.... 8)

The idea is, make money through certifications. Red Hat wants to rate themselves as Windows compatible, pay a nominal fee for the little sticker on the box. Make my competition do the work for me. And for fun, make sure that my own apps work on the other platforms, therefore giving me a larger customer base through my competing OS' efforts. 8) And charging them for it.

ReplyParent Score: 1