Can't Windows stay ahead by copying Linux code?

[praveesh]

Any one can see the source code of linux and all other open source softwares including kde and Gnome . Microsoft can also see the source code . Whenever a new technology/feature is introduced in any open source software , windows devs can just copy and paste the code and can enrich their product. They can spend the rest of their time to develop new technology or add new feature to their product . So windows will always have more feature than linux . Hence it will always dominate in desktop or in technology. There are a lot of people belives that win 7 contains codes of KDE 4.x. Iam not a windows fanboy, but just states the fact.

[racerraul]

Cutting and pasting KDE code to windows code is like pasting a windows cd to the wall and calling it a new window in the house.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Bullcrap, Linux can dominate the market if given proper chance.
And Linux has always been more feature rich then windows and always will, mainly because Linux has more hidden potential.
Windows has remained unchanged in the last 10 years, other then the switch from DOS to NT but its still the same thing.
However linux has been modified many times since its induction.

[jocko]

Microsoft can also see the source code . Whenever a new technology/feature is introduced in any open source software , windows devs can just copy and paste the code and can enrich their product.

They probably can do it, but it would not be legal.
The GPL and LGPL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gpl) free software licenses states that you are allowed to redistribute all or parts of the code, but it will have to come with a copy of the source code and be released under the same license as the original work.
So if Microsoft would like to include code from an open source project in windows, they would have to release windows under an open source license.

[Warpnow]

windows devs can just copy and paste the code and can enrich their product.

No, they can't. It doesn't work like that.

[monsterstack]

BSD-licensed code can make in into Windows, and has, in the past. Whilst GPL'd code shouldn't be put into Windows, it's highly probable that at least some of the developers will have seen some GPL'd code and have taken ideas from it. But that would be impossible to prove, and there's not really anything wrong with doing that.

[Giant Speck]

The use of the words "always" and "technology" is pushing it.

"Windows will probably dominate in the desktop for years to come," while still speculative, is probably more accurate, unless there is a sudden and unexpected change, which we probably won't see for a few years.

[dentharg]

Speaking of W7, it looks verry familiar when compared to KDE 4.3 :)

[Giant Speck]

Speaking of W7, it looks verry familiar when compared to KDE 4.3 :)

Speaking of KDE 4, it looked very familiar when I first compared it to Vista. ;)

[praveesh]

They probably can do it, but it would not be legal.
The GPL and LGPL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gpl) free software licenses states that you are allowed to redistribute all or parts of the code, but it will have to come with a copy of the source code and be released under the same license as the original work.
So if Microsoft would like to include code from an open source project in windows, they would have to release windows under an open source license.
It is not possible to prove whether windows contain any code of linux ,because it is closed source. So they dont need to release windows under open source. If it is not possible to prove , Who cares whether it is legal or not .

[monsterstack]

It is not possible to prove whether windows contain any code of linux ,because it is closed source. So they dont need to release windows under open source. If it is not possible to prove , Who cares about legal .

Microsoft have to show their code to THE MAN. They would not be able to get away with much more than a tiny infringement.

[praveesh]

Microsoft have to show their code to THE MAN. They would not be able to get away with much more than a tiny infringement.
Who is 'THE MAN'?

[monsterstack]

Who is 'THE MAN'?

Various governments of the world and associated agencies.

[wyliecoyoteuk]

MS have actually been sued in the past for using other people's code in their apps, and lost.

The most embarrassing one was a small French company whose copyright notice was readable in the code.:D

[monsterstack]

The source code being closed has caused problems in the past, too. Developers come, developers go. And not everybody can be bothered with writing good documentation. It can lead to a situation where somebody has written something, implemented it, and then he moves to another job. Over time, anyone who understood his work forgets about it. I've heard stories of comments in the source code along the lines of,

/* Don't delete any of the stuff below! We don't know what it does
but Windows crashes horribly if we remove it! */

Still could be a bunch of hearsay, though.

[automaton26]

Software features can easily be replicated without "copying" a single line of code - because there's a limited number of language constructs, and basic computer architecture has barely changed in decades.

MS may be able to dominate in terms of market size, but their size also means they can't innovate fast enough (e.g. Firefox, Wii controller). Large IT corporations can only attract the sort of coders who actually like being small cogs in big machines. Original, creative developers often end up working for themselves, or small start-ups.

Or open-source :)

[legends2k]

Large IT corporations can only attract the sort of coders who actually like being small cogs in big machines. Original, creative developers often end up working for themselves, or small start-ups.

Or open-source :smile:

@automaton26 (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=709378): Completely agree with you!

[billgoldberg]

The source code being closed has caused problems in the past, too. Developers come, developers go. And not everybody can be bothered with writing good documentation. It can lead to a situation where somebody has written something, implemented it, and then he moves to another job. Over time, anyone who understood his work forgets about it. I've heard stories of comments in the source code along the lines of,

/* Don't delete any of the stuff below! We don't know what it does
but Windows crashes horribly if we remove it! */

Still could be a bunch of hearsay, though.

Lol, that's pretty funny but could be potentially dangerous.

[benj1]

on the plus side, if they do use kde code they (hopefully) won't be stupid enough to sue linux for patent infringement.

[Sublime Porte]

So if Microsoft would like to include code from an open source project in windows, they would have to release windows under an open source license.

Actually some components of Windows do contain GPL programs from GNU, I was surprised to see this when I first came across it. Windows Services for Unix actually includes the GNU C compiler, and a few other utilities.

[Warpnow]

It is not possible to prove whether windows contain any code of linux ,because it is closed source. So they dont need to release windows under open source. If it is not possible to prove , Who cares whether it is legal or not .

The windows source code, at least, XP, has been leaked to the internet from my understanding.

[ubuwatson]

Any one can see the source code of linux and all other open source softwares including kde and Gnome . Microsoft can also see the source code . Whenever a new technology/feature is introduced in any open source software , windows devs can just copy and paste the code and can enrich their product. They can spend the rest of their time to develop new technology or add new feature to their product . So windows will always have more feature than linux . Hence it will always dominate in desktop or in technology. There are a lot of people belives that win 7 contains codes of KDE 4.x. Iam not a windows fanboy, but just states the fact.

So why does Windows still lack most of Linux's great features if this is the case ? No centralized application repositories, no virtual desktops, no compiz effects, no generic hardware detection, no security model to prevent system files from being changed, no live bootable CD to evaluate the OS, no filesystem that does not require defragging, no simple customizable themes, no notification system...i could go on all day long

I am an IT Director with thousands of windows desktops under my watch and have been using windows for decades - so tell me how is Windows better ?

Features have nothing to do with Windows dominance. If anything Windows has less features and many are not practical.

[GeneralZod]

There are a lot of people belives that win 7 contains codes of KDE 4.x.

These people can probably be safely ignored: I highly doubt that if Microsoft wanted a feature from KDE4 that they would elect to drag in the big chunks of kdelibs (LGPL) and Qt (LGPL, and copyrighted to an obscure little company called "Nokia") needed to support the likely GPL'd KDE code in question and spend time integrating the Qt and KDE round peg event loops into Win32's own square holes rather than just re-implementing the feature themselves. That's if they've even included any features that are direct clones from KDE4, of course.

[Therion]

Any one can see the source code of linux and all other open source softwares including kde and Gnome . Microsoft can also see the source code . Whenever a new technology/feature is introduced in any open source software , windows devs can just copy and paste the code and can enrich their product. They can spend the rest of their time to develop new technology or add new feature to their product . So windows will always have more feature than linux . Hence it will always dominate in desktop or in technology. There are a lot of people belives that win 7 contains codes of KDE 4.x. Iam not a windows fanboy, but just states the fact.
Potentially one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever read.

On second thought, strike "Potentially"...

[rookcifer]

They probably can do it, but it would not be legal.
The GPL and LGPL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gpl) free software licenses states that you are allowed to redistribute all or parts of the code, but it will have to come with a copy of the source code and be released under the same license as the original work.
So if Microsoft would like to include code from an open source project in windows, they would have to release windows under an open source license.

Yes, in theory. But, like the OP, I have always had a sneaking suspicion that M$ might do it anyway. GPL violations are hard to prove since most people who violate it also close their code. I have no proof M$ does this, but there is no way anyone can say they are above it morally.
I think at the very least, M$ examines the Linux codebase and gets "ideas" from it. There are many things Linux has done first, and then M$ incorporates it into the next version of 'doze.

But there is a fine line between software plagiarism and simply being "inspired" by some code. One can't just "cut and paste" code from one OS to another, at least not where kernel level stuff is concerned.

[praveesh]

It may not be possible to just copy and paste . But M$ can view the source code and can get the idea . If they use a different programming language ,and use a different technique to implement the same idea, it would be difficult to prove whether they used the linux source code or not.

[monsterstack]

Ah, yes, but taking ideas from another programmer's code is natural human behaviour. Taking ideas from others is how all humans learn, adapt and evolve. We're constantly being influenced by others' actions, opinions and behaviours. It isn't a GPL violation to get the general idea of something and implement its functionality in another way. And more than that, morally there is nothing wrong with it. The only trouble that you could have is if you violated a software patent. Sharing knowledge is a good thing; we'd still be cavemen if we didn't.

[praveesh]

Ah, yes, but taking ideas from another programmer's code is natural human behaviour. Taking ideas from others is how all humans learn, adapt and evolve. We're constantly being influenced by others' actions, opinions and behaviours. It isn't a GPL violation to get the general idea of something and implement its functionality in another way. And more than that, morally there is nothing wrong with it. The only trouble that you could have is if you violated a software patent. Sharing knowledge is a good thing; we'd still be cavemen if we didn't.
Yes ofcourse morally,there is nothing wrong with that . But Ms is benefited from the free software principles . They are using the same freedom to beat the free software .

[Giant Speck]

Yes ofcourse morally,there is nothing wrong with that . But Ms is benefited from the free software principles . They are using the same freedom to beat the free software .

It's funny how things work out like that.

[monsterstack]

Y'huh. Freedom is absolute. You either have it, or you don't.

[saulgoode]

Writing code is but one relatively small aspect of developing and maintaining a software project. Even if proprietary code-writing held an initial advantage over Free Software, in the long run it should not be expected to maintain that edge because all fixes and improvements must necessarily be performed and distributed by the proprietary company.

With Free Software, not only is everyone allowed to test and fix the code, they can contribute to additional support of new features (hey, I want it to organize my donut recipes), hardware (I want it to support my Weather MonSta cloud-tracking station), and languages (what? your program doesn't support Abkhaz? Well, hows 'bout we fix that). Free distribution means that improvements become immediately available to everyone for testing, use, and further improvements (or removal of "improvements" which a user doesn't desire).

The proprietary software model is a crippled dinosaur on its way to extinction. It wouldn't matter whether they copied Open Source code outright (which I highly doubt to be the case).

[juancarlospaco]

They can use code from all BSDs and some parts of MAC OS X.

[Screwdriver0815]

slightly off Topic:

my opinion

if Windows was open source software, it would be much better

back to topic: I have no knowledge about programming but I know from my engineering job about "getting inspiration" from other solutions.
Mostly the adoption of a feature to your own stuff is more effort than doing it on your own (fitting to your environment). So normally you think about, whether the feature is nice and how to implement it on your own way instead of simply copying it (because just copying works rarely)

So thinking of this, Microsoft just watches Youtube or reads Linux-Magazines about new features.
The other way around it is the same: the opensource developers could read all the advertising (this forum is a good resource for Win 7 ad's too) and are up to date.
Implementation of the features happens on either the Windows- or the Linux-way.

[Pasdar]

Any one can see the source code of linux and all other open source softwares including kde and Gnome . Microsoft can also see the source code . Whenever a new technology/feature is introduced in any open source software , windows devs can just copy and paste the code and can enrich their product. They can spend the rest of their time to develop new technology or add new feature to their product . So windows will always have more feature than linux . Hence it will always dominate in desktop or in technology. There are a lot of people belives that win 7 contains codes of KDE 4.x. Iam not a windows fanboy, but just states the fact.

They do it all the time, and that's how Window grew to what it is today. This is one of the downsides of open-source. Anyone can use your code and you have no way of proving it.

[Viva]

They do it all the time, and that's how Window grew to what it is today. This is one of the downsides of open-source. Anyone can use your code and you have no way of proving it.

In an ideal world, that is not a downside, that is the whole point of open source. Letting others use your source.

[Neobuntu]

The real answer is yes, they can. One way, or another. Yet, they can't move as fast.

Guess what they would actually be taking? "Intellectual property" (IP). The ULTIMATE irony! Can you say, HYPOCRITES! It's only what MS has done; all along.

We can only beat MS with better stability, new benefits, and thus (the ALL IMPORTANT) more users. Think about it.

This would be a definite departure from what we have now.

[schauerlich]

I thought the point of FOSS software was to allow people to study other people's code and learn from it in order to improve their own. Why is it bad that Microsoft would do the same?

[Pasdar]

In an ideal world, that is not a downside, that is the whole point of open source. Letting others use your source.
However, once you use it as part of your program, you're 'forced' by the license to share your code too. This is where the license fails. There is no way for you to check the code in closed source programs to begin with.

Microsoft grew by stealing everything it found and making it more appealing to the public. Many FOSS devs don't seem to get what looks good to the general public, they only know what to attract others like themselves. However, KDE gets the idea. Even Mac users install KDE on their system, that's how good looking it is.

[aysiu]

I thought the point of FOSS software was to allow people to study other people's code and learn from it in order to improve their own. Why is it bad that Microsoft would do the same?
If they are copying and pasting code (which I don't think will actually work, but let's say it did), then they are doing something illegal. You can use GPL code only if you also release it under a GPL license. Microsoft doesn't do that.

[schauerlich]

If they are copying and pasting code (which I don't think will actually work, but let's say it did), then they are doing something illegal. You can use GPL code only if you also release it under a GPL license. Microsoft doesn't do that.

I was responding to the people who seemed irked that Microsoft could be studying FOSS code and reimplementing features found within.

[pwnst*r]

speaking of kde 4, it looked very familiar when i first compared it to vista. ;)

bam.

[dragos240]

Any one can see the source code of linux and all other open source softwares including kde and Gnome . Microsoft can also see the source code . Whenever a new technology/feature is introduced in any open source software , windows devs can just copy and paste the code and can enrich their product. They can spend the rest of their time to develop new technology or add new feature to their product . So windows will always have more feature than linux . Hence it will always dominate in desktop or in technology. There are a lot of people belives that win 7 contains codes of KDE 4.x. Iam not a windows fanboy, but just states the fact.

That's cheating.

[Viva]

That's cheating.

Not an entirely new concept to microsoft

[dragos240]

Not an entirely new concept to microsoft

True :D

[Ptero-4]

So why does Windows still lack most of Linux's great features if this is the case ? No centralized application repositories, no virtual desktops, no compiz effects, no generic hardware detection, no security model to prevent system files from being changed, no live bootable CD to evaluate the OS, no filesystem that does not require defragging, no simple customizable themes, no notification system...i could go on all day long

I am an IT Director with thousands of windows desktops under my watch and have been using windows for decades - so tell me how is Windows better ?

Features have nothing to do with Windows dominance. If anything Windows has less features and many are not practical.

1) They can't have a package manager system 'cause it would negativelly affect comercial software developpers.

2) Compiz-like effect would be opposite to M$ "philosophy" about "proffesional" (a.k.a: boring, monotone) software.

3) They can't have a LiveCD 'cause then it would affect their own sales, unless they make the disc useless.

Not an entirely new concept to microsoft

Totally true.