Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 13th Apr 2007 16:50 UTC
Windows It's been a while since the latest Microsoft-should-open-source-Windows article, so SJVN felt compelled to write one. "Although Microsoft may claim otherwise, Vista, from both from a technical and business point of view, is proving to be a failure. Why not turn it over to people who have shown time after time that they can deliver the goods?"
Thread beginning with comment 230601
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Should be titled:
by Nelson on Fri 13th Apr 2007 17:01 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

Dear Mr Gates, throw away the billions Microsoft invested into Vista and essentially give away the primary work your company has been doing for the last 5 years.

Perhaps someone should tell that guy to give away his house or his car? Better idea, someone give away his computer so he can't post this nonsense.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Should be titled:
by bornagainenguin on Fri 13th Apr 2007 18:59 in reply to "Should be titled:"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

Give me a break!

Microsoft has already thrown away millions on Vista, all open sourcing Windows would mean is an admission of what we already knew--Microsoft is better at languages and "business math" than it is at actually producing something useful...

Why keep throwing more good money after bad when you can open source and (hopefully) reap the benefit of having your code worked on people passionate about code?

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Should be titled:
by butters on Sat 14th Apr 2007 01:36 in reply to "Should be titled:"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

Should be titled: Dear Mr. Gates, your company has proven itself incompetent at securing a proprietary operating system, so why don't you open it up and really let the black hats have their way with your customers?

You can't open a proprietary software system unless it is relatively secure against white-box attacks. Windows can't even stand up to black-box attacks. Open source is an incredibly efficient development model, but it is not a silver bullet for quality and security problems. In fact, the reality of distributed open source development raises the bar substantially in both of these areas. The code has to be clean, and it has to be robust. Otherwise nobody is going to be able to contribute, and everybody is going to be able to exploit it.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Should be titled:
by psychicist on Sat 14th Apr 2007 15:36 in reply to "RE: Should be titled:"
psychicist Member since:
2007-01-27

Since you are an AIX developer, could you say that the code is higher quality than what is available for example in GNU/Linux or BSD?

I think it's not a matter of proprietary vs open source but more like high-quality vs low-quality. In this respect Windows doesn't stand a chance but AIX, HP-UX, OpenVMS and MVS will continue to exist because of their proven quality.

And nowadays it's a fact that most commercially-available proprietary software (especially) for Windows is not very good although there are some good ones mostly from other companies than Microsoft.

In this sense third parties keep the Microsoft ecosystem alive while they could so easily kill it off by releasing versions for multiple platforms. GNU/Linux at least sets the bar high enough that something like Windows cannot compete.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Should be titled:
by vegai on Sat 14th Apr 2007 10:20 in reply to "Should be titled:"
vegai Member since:
2005-12-25

If Vista source code was released, tens of thousands of programmers would die laughing.

I'm talking Monty Python's "Killer Sketch" becoming reality.

Nobody wants that, I hope.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: Should be titled:
by knightrider on Mon 16th Apr 2007 16:13 in reply to "Should be titled:"
knightrider Member since:
2006-12-11

LOL....

Reply Parent Score: 1