If Windows/NT was open source...

[Grant A.]

...would you use it more? I noticed recently that when products become open source, they tend to get a larger user base, and become more stable. If Windows or the NT kernel was open source, I think that bugs would get fixed much quicker and a lot of viri could be neutralized.

Why can't companies seem to realize free labor isn't a bad thing? Infact, I would think they would be in favor of it.

[jimi_hendrix]

i use linux when i feel its appropriate and windows when i feel it is appropriate

it makes no difference if its open source (however the only reason i tried linux was because it was free and looked cool...)

[jrusso2]

What do you mean by NT? You mean release NT 4.0 as open source. Or are you saying Vista is NT and should be Open Source. I don't think Microsoft is that interested in making their top sellers open.

[Grant A.]

The NT kernel

[ajcham]

Currently I don't use it at all. But, if it was freely available, sure - I'd install it for the sake of a few games.

EDIT:
Oh and sorry for my pedantry, but:

...a lot of viri could be neutralized.
Please... it's viruses. Viri means men, and I for one don't feel like being neutralised.

[Giant Speck]

Being open source doesn't necessarily mean that the software is good. It just means I can view and edit the source, which I really don't feel like doing.

I use Windows anyway, and despite the fact it is proprietary, I still like it. If it were to become open source, it would not change my opinion of Windows, nor do I think it would change my user experience much.

[billgoldberg]

Being open source doesn't necessarily mean that the software is good. It just means I can view and edit the source, which I really don't feel like doing.

I use Windows anyway, and despite the fact it is proprietary, I still like it. If it were to become open source, it would not change my opinion of Windows, nor do I think it would change my user experience much.

I agree with this post.

I don't use Windows (much), it gonig open source wouldn't change my opinion on it.

The reason I use Linux is because I think it's better, not because I don't like Windows.

[Giant Speck]

I agree with this post.

You do realize I said I liked Windows.... right?

[squeabs]

I know it may not be exactly as windows, but it looks like there's a team attempting to do this.
React OS (http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html)

[billgoldberg]

You do realize I said I liked Windows.... right?

Yes.

I've edited my post to clarify my point.

--

It's not because I use Linux that I'm a MS hater, like some of the forum members.

I still think Windows is pretty good.

It gets the job done and is easy to use.

[Giant Speck]

Yes.

I've edited my post to clarify my point.

--

It's not because I use Linux that I'm a MS hater, like some of the forum members.

I still think Windows is pretty good.

It gets the job done and is easy to use.

I had to make sure. It's not often that people agree with me on these forums.

:lolflag:

[billgoldberg]

I had to make sure. It's not often that people agree with me on these forums.

:lolflag:

I know, I still remember the post (or thread) you made about that on grubbn.

[Dr. C]

Voted No.

A Kernel does not an operating system make. Now if they made all of Windows Free Software / Open Source or at least a proportion of it FLOSS that is comparable to the typical GNU / Linux distribution, and with a substantial and growing proportion of code under GPL v3 that would be another matter.

In any case most of the problems with Windows can be traced to its closed propriety nature, other corporate or legal issues, and its support for DRM. This is especially true of Vista.

[magmon]

I think that old windows versions should be made open. Like 2000, its not even on the market, why not make it open?

[linuxguymarshall]

No I would not use it. I would wait for someone to rip apart the Windows API and use it for the Wine project.

[Frak]

This reminds me of the time when the 2000 source code was accidentally leaked from Microsoft. While Microsoft thought it was bad, a person who was studying the source code (legal in the US under Fair Use) happened to find a vulnerability in Internet Explorer and reported it. Microsoft, being the people they are, and me not blaming them for this action, pressed the issue as already being known internally and working to be solved.

While that tells good for Open Source, I already use Windows heavily, so I don't see why I could use it "more". I voted yes.

[JoshuaRL]

This reminds me of the time when the 2000 source code was accidentally leaked from Microsoft. While Microsoft thought it was bad, a person who was studying the source code (legal in the US under Fair Use) happened to find a vulnerability in Internet Explorer and reported it. Microsoft, being the people they are, and me not blaming them for this action, pressed the issue as already being known internally and working to be solved.

While that tells good for Open Source, I already use Windows heavily, so I don't see why I could use it "more". I voted yes.

So does that mean that the source for 2000 is out there on the ether somewhere?

[CholericKoala]

Competition among 3rd party proprietors helps push software forward. I hope that windows and apple go at it forever while linux sits on the side and reaps the benefits from both.

[Frak]

So does that mean that the source for 2000 is out there on the ether somewhere?
Yes, but Microsoft is still (sorta) working with the FBI to track people who have, want, or are seeking the source code. They just send a fancy letter saying "stop plz :(".

[JoshuaRL]

Yes, but Microsoft is still (sorta) working with the FBI to track people who have, want, or are seeking the source code. They just send a fancy letter saying "stop plz :(".

With the FBI? Dangs. Well, I didn't much like 2000 anyway, but it would be cool to have an OS beginning there and becoming secure and stable. But hopefully ReactOS will get there through different means.

[Frak]

With the FBI? Dangs. Well, I didn't much like 2000 anyway, but it would be cool to have an OS beginning there and becoming secure and stable. But hopefully ReactOS will get there through different means.
When Microsoft releases v. 15, I foresee ReactOS reaching Windows v. 5 (Windows XP) compatibility.

[WaeV]

Being open source doesn't necessarily mean that the software is good. It just means I can view and edit the source, which I really don't feel like doing.

In my experience, a fresh install of Windows is that fastest my PC will ever get. (Too bad it slows down so quickly).

If WIndows was OSS, I'm sure we could not only fix the bugs in it but use some of the good ideas the blokes at MS had and apply it to the linux kernel.

[MaxIBoy]

If NT was GPL'd tomorrow, I'd use it more. However, NT has a fairly inferior design, so I'd only use it when I had to. Especially since WINE would instantly become perfect, I wouldn't have much use for it.


If NT had been GPL'd from the beginning, I'd still be using it full-time, and none of us would be here.


By the way, it's not really easy to make a distinction between NT and the NT kernel, as NT is so monolithic it's scary.

[koffeinöverdos]

I still would not use it, but i would go upgrade wine. :lolflag:

[glotz]

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

[JoshuaRL]

In my experience, a fresh install of Windows is that fastest my PC will ever get. (Too bad it slows down so quickly).

If WIndows was OSS, I'm sure we could not only fix the bugs in it but use some of the good ideas the blokes at MS had and apply it to the linux kernel.

Really? Have you ever tried a small distro like DSL or Puppy? There's some wicked fast Linux out there, I just can't believe XP, even fresh, runs faster than them. I even have a hard time believing that XP can run faster than a tweaked, optimized Ubuntu. Or at least, that has not been my experience.

[MikeTheC]

@ If Windows NT was open-source...
1. We would have had full NTFS support in 1995?
2. WinSock would never have existed?
3. It would have actually been a peer-reviewed OS product?
4. We probably wouldn't have had the virus fiasco with WinXP that we did?

I still wouldn't have used it, tho... I don't support the Redmond Hegemony.

[forrestcupp]

Why can't companies seem to realize free labor isn't a bad thing? Infact, I would think they would be in favor of it.I think any free market business would rather pay for labor and make billions of dollars than have free labor and not make any money at all. That's the whole point of running a business.



@ If Windows NT was open-source...

4. We probably wouldn't have had the virus fiasco with WinXP that we did?
Virus creators don't give a rat's behind what OS you're using or whether or not you're open source. All they care about is how they can mess with as many people's computers as possible.

If Linux had the market share, there would be malware galore for Linux. And don't think it's not possible. Linux users run sudo privilege scripts all the time without trying to decipher their programming first.

[JoshuaRL]

I think any free market business would rather pay for labor and make billions of dollars than have free labor and not make any money at all. That's the whole point of running a business.

Good point.


Virus creators don't give a rat's behind what OS you're using or whether or not you're open source. All they care about is how they can mess with as many people's computers as possible.

If Linux had the market share, there would be malware galore for Linux. And don't think it's not possible. Linux users run sudo privilege scripts all the time without trying to decipher their programming first.

Here is where I disagree. Do you remember how fast the community responded to the rm -rf fiasco? The whole focus on user instruction and limited user access would prevent a large part of this. Sure, it is possible to do something dumb. But the changeability of Linux would mean that we wouldn't have long before vectors were neutralised.

And malware writers are not primarily employed in just crashing stuff. They want money. Or info that can get them money. Or botnets that can get them... well you get the idea. And Linux is just a really hard target. Lack of users as a security point is invalid, and untrue in the case of Linux. Important servers are much better game than regular users, but they are secure.

And most Linux users don't run sudo scripts from an untrusted and unreviewed source. At least that I know of.

[ajcham]

And most Linux users don't run sudo scripts from an untrusted and unreviewed source. At least that I know of.

That's because the subset of computer users running Linux are generally more savvy than average. If the Windows users that frequently have their system compromised because they installed a dodgy screensaver or supposed anti-virus tool were all switched to Linux, they would run untrusted sudo scripts.

If that was not the case then this announcement (http://ubuntuforums.org/announcement.php?f=331) would have been unnecessary.

[Frak]

That's because the subset of computer users running Linux are generally more savvy than average. If the Windows users that frequently have their system compromised because they installed a dodgy screensaver or supposed anti-virus tool were all switched to Linux, they would run untrusted sudo scripts.

If that was not the case then this announcement (http://ubuntuforums.org/announcement.php?f=331) would have been unnecessary.

Agreed


And malware writers are not primarily employed in just crashing stuff. They want money. Or info that can get them money. Or botnets that can get them... well you get the idea. And Linux is just a really hard target. Lack of users as a security point is invalid, and untrue in the case of Linux. Important servers are much better game than regular users, but they are secure.

And most Linux users don't run sudo scripts from an untrusted and unreviewed source. At least that I know of.

Lack of users is incredibly valid. As for the point of the server market, as I've said before, it makes more sense to target the interpreter instead of the system. PHP has just as much power as the kernel does in terms of people's bank accounts. Besides that, GNU/Linux does have vulnerabilities as does Microsoft Windows. You'd notice that Linux isn't hit much at all due to the fact on where Linux usually sits in a server environment. Linux is usually the back-end holding account information, while many times Microsoft IIS is being used as a webserver (or apache on WAMP and sometimes just LAMP). Many businesses find it comforting that Windows is closed source, as so they use IIS to interact with the world, and Linux with it's cheap efficiency, managing the behind-the-scenes. Therefore, it makes more sense to attack the messenger to retrieve the information from the master (Windows IIS webserver requesting information from the Linux-backend).


@ If Windows NT was open-source...
1. We would have had full NTFS support in 1995?
2. WinSock would never have existed?
3. It would have actually been a peer-reviewed OS product?
4. We probably wouldn't have had the virus fiasco with WinXP that we did?

I still wouldn't have used it, tho... I don't support the Redmond Hegemony.

1. Yes
2. It still would have existed.
3. Is it not now a peer-reviewed product?
4. No OS is safe from malware. All locks can be picked.


Really? Have you ever tried a small distro like DSL or Puppy? There's some wicked fast Linux out there, I just can't believe XP, even fresh, runs faster than them. I even have a hard time believing that XP can run faster than a tweaked, optimized Ubuntu. Or at least, that has not been my experience.

DSL and Puppy run as fast as a normal XP installation on my computer.


If NT was GPL'd tomorrow, I'd use it more. However, NT has a fairly inferior design, so I'd only use it when I had to. Especially since WINE would instantly become perfect, I wouldn't have much use for it.

You're the only person I know of that (possibly) has knowledge of NT to call it inferior. Other source-holders I talk to praise it, especially for its portability.


If NT had been GPL'd from the beginning, I'd still be using it full-time, and none of us would be here.

Doubt that. Just because something is open source, and people like open source doesn't guarantee people won't flock to something else.


By the way, it's not really easy to make a distinction between NT and the NT kernel, as NT is so monolithic it's scary.

Hate to break it to you, but Linux is monolithic, as is BSD. NT is a hybrid made of both Micro and monolithic kernel architectures.

[Spr0k3t]

The only reason for using the NT kernel would be for gaming. Since everything else works the way I need it with Linux. On a very rare occasion, I do access Windows at home. The only times I have accessed it are when I want to test if a game installs so I can play it using WINE.

[MaxIBoy]

I consider NT inferior because of the registry, its poorly implemented multi-user capabilities (which have been improved with Vista, but which are still groaning under the weight of years of legacy programs,) and the monolithic "vibe" it has.

The server version comes with a GUI that runs all the time, and it's impossible to uninstall certain components such as IE without third-party modifications. Even if the code runs in user-space, it's still not designed to be disabled or replaced. Witness the problems some people have with WindowBlinds, even after they've had years to work with the NT kernels. When you have to get a team of programmers to hack around for years, just to replace something that should've been a separate piece of software anyway, that stinks of monolithic. (Of course, open source software is also guilty of this to a lesser degree-- binary blobs in the kernel and you can't get rid of Evolution without destroying GNOME-- but it's much less of a problem.)