Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:11:56 +0100 (MEZ)
From: "Dr. Michael Weller" <eowmob@exp-math.uni-essen.de>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0103090717200.1595-100000@mikeg.weiden.de>
Message-Id: <Pine.A32.3.95.1010309114743.41828A-100000@werner.exp-math.uni-essen.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

Oh my, why I am responding to this garbage thread?

On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:

> On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, J. Dow wrote:
> 
> > From: "Alan Cox" <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
> >
> > > > Please check out this article. Looks like microsoft know open source is the
> > > > thing of the future. I would consider that it is a begining step for full
> > > > blown GPL!!!!
[...]
> True (afaikt).  A major difference is that those few who actually make
> changes have to defend their changes in an open forum.  They can't do a
> half-assed job (intentionally or otherwise) and have it not be noticed.
> 
> We have a lot more people contributing to quality control and providing
> input for designers than actual designers.

Plus: There is no product deadline. If something is not ready, it is not
ready and not pushed into the market, even though anyone knows it is not
ready. 

If some module needs to be overdone to deal with a new situation not
considered when the module was first designed: It's thrown away and redone
from scratch.

Every coder wants a perfect solution for his problem, not just some hack
to shut his boss up and comply with the timeline.

Also new features are added when they seem sensible and fit into the
concept. Not just because a marketing guy says that a certain customer
needs yet another button for a specific task (since he is to stupid to see
how to do it with the stuff he already has). Unfortunately linux developed
a tendency to this problem too.

Finally a huge effort of M$ goes into inventing new, proprietary
protocols rather than trying to comply (or sensibly enhance) well thought
over accepted standards.

IMHO, you'll never see an OpenSource Windows. What would happen is like
with Netscape: Everyone says: Yuk, so that's a commercial program. They
will see there is no other way to fix it than to throw it away. M$ could
no longer ask for ridiculous payments for their crap (anyone just compiles
an own version) and since there protocols are no longer proprietary they
could no longer force people to use their products and kill markets. And
no one would send them patches for yet another new incompatible feature.
They'll just go bankrupt. 

Of course, if they go bankrupt, you might get the source. Maybe they'll
really be split into an OS and application company like the court
suggested. The OS part will just die (there is nothing deserving that name
at all) and the application part might port office suites and admin tools
to linux/unix and MacOs and what else. They really have a chance (but Kde
and other stuff will become a powerful competitor). They might die too
though, since these commercial applications will just be as buggy as
others and crash all the time (cf. Netscape), they'll also be expensive
and there will be free, working alternatives (but with fewer rings and
bells and maybe not as easy to use for Joe Blow User).

Just my two pence, sorry for the bandwidth.
Michael.

--

Michael Weller: eowmob@exp-math.uni-essen.de, eowmob@ms.exp-math.uni-essen.de,
or even mat42b@spi.power.uni-essen.de. If you encounter an eowmob account on
any machine in the net, it's very likely it's me.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/