Reviews, News, and How To!
Open Windows
Microsoft is widely regarded as having a distaste for open source. Wherever you stand on the issue, they *do* actually support it, as evidenced by projects such as mono, rotor, dotgnu, and the entire codeplex community. These projects are all well-respected and thriving, under open source licenses.
I personally think the next logical step for this process should be what some would consider a major, and potentially blasphemous leap: Open Windows.
It's really long overdue, and under today's development environment, it would be a boon for the maker of the world's most ubiquitous software package. Under a BSD, Apache or Eclipse license, it would allow users to use, modify, and contribute to Windows development on an unprecedented level, and alleviate a lot of the black box mentality that has plagued it for so long. They could even make their money selling service packages and enterprise licenses, rather than operating systems. They could also begin using that wonderful legal department as a moneymaker whenever someone produces something remotely resembling Windows code for sale.
It's a fantastic idea right? So what's stopping it. The answer isn't really all that cut and dried.
Over the past few years, the change of guard at Redmond has produced arguably spotty results. The new management seems entirely reactionary and prone to trying to best everyone at everything. There really isn't any sense of direction. In particular, Ballmer seems to be more concerned about trouncing the latest Apple MP3 player and making an interface for search simpler than a text box and a button, than actually producing new software. The production mill is moving, but without direction, it's going nowhere fast and in danger of grinding to a disastrous halt.
The product lifespans for projects started under Gates era administration are all but coming to an end. Direct X 11 will be out soon, the much awaited Windows 7 will be released tenatively in October, and a new version of visual studio (though moreso under the direction of Delphi creator Anders Hejlsberg) will also be released in 2009. Unfortunately, without a real guiding force (say what you want about him, he knew how to say 'we're going to do this'), the company seems poised to stagger and fall.
It is this author's opinion that Microsoft needs a change. The market is no longer about selling shrink wrapped software and the oft reffered to 'old guard' seems incapable of realizing this. They need to rebuild themselves based on providing services. IBM has made a new niche for themselves in the current market through the Global Services Division and have expanded exponentially simply by providing tools and then selling assistance for implementing them. Microsoft barely scratches the surface here, and has a consulting division because they're supposed to. Instead, they've over-diversified, and made a classic mistake of attempting to capture both the consumer and enterprise market under the same banner. This has always, and always will result in nothing more than progressively more ineffectual development and an overall diluted offering (see: the painfully successful linux initiative). Let apple have the consumer market, or take the consumer market and bow out of the enterprise game.
So, in summary, the future is service, Microsoft needs some new blood and Open Windows is long overdue. Now all we need to do is convince a certain philanthropic nerd and controlling shareholder to depose a grown man who seems to enjoy acting like a monkey on camera.
I personally think the next logical step for this process should be what some would consider a major, and potentially blasphemous leap: Open Windows.
It's really long overdue, and under today's development environment, it would be a boon for the maker of the world's most ubiquitous software package. Under a BSD, Apache or Eclipse license, it would allow users to use, modify, and contribute to Windows development on an unprecedented level, and alleviate a lot of the black box mentality that has plagued it for so long. They could even make their money selling service packages and enterprise licenses, rather than operating systems. They could also begin using that wonderful legal department as a moneymaker whenever someone produces something remotely resembling Windows code for sale.
It's a fantastic idea right? So what's stopping it. The answer isn't really all that cut and dried.
Over the past few years, the change of guard at Redmond has produced arguably spotty results. The new management seems entirely reactionary and prone to trying to best everyone at everything. There really isn't any sense of direction. In particular, Ballmer seems to be more concerned about trouncing the latest Apple MP3 player and making an interface for search simpler than a text box and a button, than actually producing new software. The production mill is moving, but without direction, it's going nowhere fast and in danger of grinding to a disastrous halt.
The product lifespans for projects started under Gates era administration are all but coming to an end. Direct X 11 will be out soon, the much awaited Windows 7 will be released tenatively in October, and a new version of visual studio (though moreso under the direction of Delphi creator Anders Hejlsberg) will also be released in 2009. Unfortunately, without a real guiding force (say what you want about him, he knew how to say 'we're going to do this'), the company seems poised to stagger and fall.
It is this author's opinion that Microsoft needs a change. The market is no longer about selling shrink wrapped software and the oft reffered to 'old guard' seems incapable of realizing this. They need to rebuild themselves based on providing services. IBM has made a new niche for themselves in the current market through the Global Services Division and have expanded exponentially simply by providing tools and then selling assistance for implementing them. Microsoft barely scratches the surface here, and has a consulting division because they're supposed to. Instead, they've over-diversified, and made a classic mistake of attempting to capture both the consumer and enterprise market under the same banner. This has always, and always will result in nothing more than progressively more ineffectual development and an overall diluted offering (see: the painfully successful linux initiative). Let apple have the consumer market, or take the consumer market and bow out of the enterprise game.
So, in summary, the future is service, Microsoft needs some new blood and Open Windows is long overdue. Now all we need to do is convince a certain philanthropic nerd and controlling shareholder to depose a grown man who seems to enjoy acting like a monkey on camera.
Comment
-
Comment by Kitty on June 14, 2009 at 10:14am -
The first part is a big part of their existing marketing and business model. In the words of Bill Gates, 'if they're going to pirate software, I'd rather it be ours.'
Making it open source doesn't really relate to faster. Some versions of linux are fast, ubuntu runs on par with XP in my experience. The difference is moreso the kernel it's using and the fact that there really isn't as much stuff supported under linux. This can be viewed as both a positive and a negative for windows, but at the end of the day, supporting millions of pieces of hardware, graphics libraries and protocols out of the box comes at a performance cost.
-
Comment by Kitty on June 7, 2009 at 10:09pm
-
@TekBudda
While I respect your opinion, I can't really get behind any GPL project. As a developer, I understand intimately how my being able to get payed for my work relates to me being able to eat, and pay my bills. It takes money to develop software, and regardless of any quaint social agenda someone might have, someone has to pay for it in the end.
Microsoft currently sponsors a number of open source projects, as mentioned in my article, and that's *why* I suggest it might be viable to extend that if you just get rid of ballmer. In fact, that was the entire point of the article, so from your comment I am getting the impression you didn't read the article, and you're just advertising for ReactOS. I don't appreciate that.
-
Comment by TekBudda on June 7, 2009 at 9:24pm -
I have heard this bandied about many times & truthfully it is unlikely to ever happen...exspecially with monkey-boy Ballmer at the helm. I think that clown has done more damage then good to MS & unless he is ousted, I can definately see their decline continue (i.e. MS recently dipped under (90% market share on the desktop, with Mac & Linux among others, picking up the slack).
As a hypothetical...IF MS wanted to make an open source (in the truest sense of the word...read: not just free as in beer) Windows, their is actually a safe way for them to do so. Why not sponsor an open source project (or some sort of open license) & contribute code to that project & essentially develop an open source Windows. Where would they find such a project you ask?
For a number of years there has been a project that is in the simplest of terms, trying to create an open source Windows equivalent. The following from their website (www.reactos.org) says it better then I could:
ReactOS® is a free, modern operating system based on the design of Windows® XP/2003. Written completely from scratch, it aims to follow the Windows® architecture designed by Microsoft from the hardware level right through to the application level. This is not a Linux based system, and shares none of the unix architecture.
The main goal of the ReactOS project is to provide an operating system which is binary compatible with Windows. This will allow your Windows applications and drivers to run as they would on your Windows system. Additionally, the look and feel of the Windows operating system is used, such that people accustomed to the familiar user interface of Windows® would find using ReactOS straightforward. The ultimate goal of ReactOS is to allow you to remove Windows® and install ReactOS without the end user noticing the change.
Who knows....maybe Ballmer or one of his flying monkey minions (remember them from Wizard of Oz?) are trolling this site looking for new ideas to steal....um.. I mean to develop purely on their own...and will see this post & take a look & consider what their customers (that would be you & I folks) are discussing & actually listen.
As the above is hypothetical it is also unlikely & so I will continue my transition to using open source & free software (yes their is a difference in some cases) & continue my move to a primarily Linux-based environment. Long live the Penguin!!!
-
Comment by cliffystones on June 7, 2009 at 7:56am -
I've seen this sort of thing happen all of my life. Companies like Sears and Roebuck, Mc Donald's, the big 4 auto makers (anyone remember American Motors?).
The point is, it seems that when a company gets to the "top of the hill" that the only direction it can seem to continue afterward is "downhill".
Not a dig against MS products here, more of a "life-observation".
-
Comment by Richard C. Noe on June 6, 2009 at 1:23pm -
I'm homeless and every few years I've dipped into the well of Freeware on the Net. Right now I'm writing this on a 2nd hand laptop. It was offered to a friend who passed it on to me. With XP home on it. There's only 2 games on it that were paid for. The rest is Freeware. Open Office, The Gimp, Slickrun (amazingly useful) and many others. Granted, I'm not in an 'Enterprise' but if you've got XP it's already pretty free. MS bullied a chaotic DOS environment into a standardized format. Developers can do what they want free of competitive litigation. I picked up a Windows Lite (3.1) for laptops from AOL in 93 or 94. It was pretty cool. You have to LOSE the branding mindset. Shop at the 99cent store. It's the same product. It's just cheaper.
-
Comment by Kitty on June 6, 2009 at 9:38am
-
@seif
It always matters. It's about encouraging marketplace diversity.
-
Comment by Seif Sallam on June 6, 2009 at 9:22am -
does it really matter ? sooner or later Open Source will dominate unless MS came up with something, and i still don't think MS will Open Source its products previous products, but maybe the new one's.
-
Comment by Kitty on June 6, 2009 at 8:38am
-
I dunno, I can't say *all* IT is against it, but it's really not a workstation OS. I use it for tasks on my higher end machines because it *is* faster than XP, but it also requires higher spec hardware.
That's kind of the problem with the window's 'flavours' in general. They don't offer a true workstation platform like they did with 2000. It's a one-size fits all implementation and that is doomed to failure, especially when the primary performance detractor is a visual enhancement.
I always try to avoid saying 'all,' not to be ambiguous, but because it avoids the inevitability of my argument being at best woefully inaccurate. From an administrative standpoint, Vista is significantly more secure and easier to administer on a policy end. The biggest difference is the implementation of code access security, which XP desperately needs on a low level. As it stands XP is a block of swiss cheese. When Windows 7 comes out, all the administrators will have to learn the new security model anyways. Every other viable enterprise operating system supports the same type of security in one form or another, so there's really no looking back.
Boot time really shouldn't be an issue, unless you're running websphere where you have to reboot the server each time you save a code revision, your employees should be having to reboot maybe once a week. What matters in the performance department is how it runs once it is up.
The admin decisions I see in 'IT' for not migrating commonly fall into two categories:
1) A genuine dislike for vista, based either on rumour or simple preference for xp/laziness in learning yet another system.
2) The valid business argument that to run Vista it will require a significant infrastructure upgrade. You get upgraded security and performance, yes, but you also lose money in equipment, training administrative staff and developing new processes and procedures. No company wants to spend money they don't have to.
The core of XP is outdated and insecure. The minimal kernel they've included in Windows 7 is a great starting point, and people looking to really provide value to their employers and job security would do well to evaluate the new operating and learn the nuances of code access security and policy implementation under it.
So, in short, if you're running a call center or managing a project, XP and a low end system is probably fine (I'm actually going to be experimenting with putting my sales staff on the EEE keyboard machines when it comes out), for tasks that require more power and a more efficient operating system, it's better to suffer through Vista boot times.
p.s. Thankfully, windows 7 will make Vista a moot point very soon. I am *really* looking forward to having the increased performance gains with the rapid boot time and clean kernel implementation I've seen in the 7 release candidates and betas.
-
Comment by Gabriel MICLAUS on June 6, 2009 at 7:59am -
In 2004 we (I and my company) start to deploy... Win XP, only on new hardware. Today, we deploy new hardware with same Win XP (and in last three years it comes with Vista preinstalled, but we use our image with XP), and repair really old ones with Win 2K. And all IT is against Vista.
And against... "flavors". At home same XP Pro load in under 90 seconds - good enough for me, at job the same XP Pro... corporative is loading in over 500 second (best shot!) - driving crazy users who need to reboot at every Windows error and crash...
For me personally, MS died two years ago, when Vista did not fulfilled the promises. And it seems that a very big IT department feels like me.
I would like a free Windows - open sourse, strating with basic core of XP (no MSIE, Office, Studio, DotNet... integration) (well, 98SE could also be a good start, but is really too old and unfit for how the IT and internet become), even under the "house" of Microsoft if the name itself "Microsoft" is not forced to be used and Microsoft do not try to impose directive for development.
Think of the already available software, think of the non-money intrested thousands of developers who want to make a really good thing.
Could be amazing!
-
Comment by Keith Stoneberger on June 5, 2009 at 9:52am -
Nav has a good point on the "windows lite" idea. If there is even a conception to an open windows, it should be only home user based. If Ubuntu was a little more user friendly, they would probably increase the user base. What most users wanna do today is just turn the computer on, have it connect to the internet automatically so they can go to their yahoo mail, gmail or whatever then 'visit' there friends on facebook or myspace and see what ashton kutcher is doing on twitter. The regular user is not going to want to go thru the psuedo commands to hook up their internet connection and their printer. If windows puts an opensource windows out there, they could eliminate that problem. I wouldn't put all the bells and whistles that the paied versions has now, just put in what opensource software like ubuntu has now.
Hypothectically, if such a venture does happen, will this effect Microsoft from IT techs and developers? Will more of the so salled "web designers" be switching over to opensource? On the money side, how much will this affect Microsoft on the stock market?
© 2012 Created by Chris Pirillo.
You need to be a member of Geeks to add comments!
Join Geeks