Many of you are commenting, complaining that there will be around "500 versions" of Windows. Well, if Windows does go open, it will be just as open as Linux, and I don't hear anyone complaining about how many Linux versions are out there. I'm sure there will be just as many Windows versions as there are Linux versions.

uhh... Gee, you're a little slow...

We don't want that many Windows versions because we dislike the amount of Linux distros there are, it just destroys compatibility

Uhmmmm Geee..Uhmm not really...all the apps i have done..and/or use for my Red Hat box also work on my friend's debian box...and slackware one too....not to mention a Solaris box at work...ohh and FreeBSD too...
Linux all based on the SAME kernel so that it IS compatible...and Linux is based on UNIX so it is compatible.
I mean things like my modem, or DVD..or software for my DVD..or many other random thing don't work in win2000 yet they do work in 98, but some don't in 95....now what kind of compatibility is that? (note all of the above, modem, DVD, DVD software...etc. work in Linux) ....or do you have more experience on this then me, seems like you are just saying that to say it not because you have proof of it...or maybe i'm mistaken?

True, Windows and Linux puts out the same number of OS's, but people complain about windows because they either haven't heard of/used Linux or they are tired of Microsoft not fixing things when they ask, I have found that Linux is very god about that. I use Win2k Pro and Server, but they still don't even come close to Linux products, or even UNIX for that matter. Why can't everyone just use Linux?? :)

I must admit that the prospect of an Open Source Windows is pretty kewl. If Windows was open sourced, then the developers of WINE (Windows API Emulator for Linux) could really make some serious strides towards creating a useful product. (And get rid of my last excuse for using Windows)

If Windows was open sourced, no doubt it would be released under some sort of special license though. Any of you who have an idea in your head that it would be released under GNU certainly have something coming in the way of a surprise.

However, open source or not, other OSes are going to be just as hard pressed to compete with Microsoft. Lets face it, If the other companies really do make better products (as they have claimed) then what could the open sourcing of windows possible do for them?

Absolutely nothing. That is of course assuming they have told the truth. :-) The best open sourcing can do is strengthen Windows stranglehold on the market.

So you see, the open sourcing of Windows will accomplish nothing the DOJ would like to see accomplished. They would have to be stupid to even consider that as a viable solution to the antitrust issue. Of course we are talking about the government here and well.....

Microsoft will most likely be spilt into a number of smaller companies. Since the bulk of their revenue comes from OS and MS Office sales, its likely that we will have three maybe four divisions:

(1) MS Windows
(2) MS Office
(3) Games
(4) Other Software

** 3 and 4 may possibly be combined into one entity

As far as Mac and Linux are concerned..... I dont see much chance of Apple benefiting no matter what the verdict is. I mean, how many chances does one company need before they finally get it right? It took them god knows how many years, but Mac OS X will have all those features that unix gurus and Windows NTers have enjoyed for years. (Remember Mac OS X is based on Nextstep - the last version of which came out around 1994 - 1995. Apple is essentially slapping a pretty interface on it, and throwing a few bloated APIs in for good measure)

Apples problem is that they just dont get it. Yuppies and computers just dont mix :-)

Linux could possibly benefit from an open source windows (read the WINE example at the beggining). But more than anything Linux needs a standard, easy to configure user interface (like Mac OS X will have) and I simply dont see that happening anytime soon if ever.

Well there you go..... all flames, comments, and retorts may be sent to gamorck@home.com

Thanks,

Gam

Now that the world is sitting ring side to the Microsoft/linux bout,Let's see how fast MAC becomes a contender again.... This it's possable?

Both have their Pro's and Con's " NT/Linux. Whats about Mac
Or are they still down for the count from Microsofts left hook?

Im courious to see who's gonna eat the next left hook after the jabs are tee'ed up!

Pease

MacOS was NEVER a contender with WindowsNT, it is a competiter of Windows9x, which I am must say, Windows Millennium Edition will destroy it.

Windows2000 is superior to Linux in nearly every aspect, except price, but with Linux, you get what you pay for, a load of junk, with only a bunch of Hot-To's and Mini-How-To's to help you figure out what the heck you are doing, no decent GUI, and horrible configuration tools.

One thing many of you are missing is....yes windows is the most popular OS, yet the most popular WEBSERVER is Apache, which runs on Unix/Linux...Apache is used by over 50% of the worlds websites...
The top three are:
Server January 2000 Percent February 2000 Percent Change
Apache: 5521069 55.49 6482728 58.08 2.59
Microsoft-IIS: 2277155 22.88 2444172 21.90 -0.98
Netscape-Enterprise: 727427 7.31 820930 7.35 0.04

As you can see IIS has GONE DOWN while the OPEN SOURCE, FREE Apache, has risen almost 3%....a graph and more data can be found here:
http://www.netcraft.com/survey/
As well, apache, is more securce....it has been tested...but the numbers say it all.

Sad to say but Apache actually runs on Win32 platforms too. It isn't optimized for it but it runs.

True, but point being that Apache is Open Soucre....yet is hailed as more secure then NT ISS...
and anyways only like, what....
.2% or .02% of Apache use is currently on Win32? :)

more secure then NT? I dont think so

Linux is bar far more secure then NT. And I'd rather no one tell me "But NT 4.0 has a C2 rating!". Whereas that rating is on a single user system with *NO* network/internet/extranet/etc.. connection.

By default linux is not more secure then Windows NT. But if someone who knows what they are doing is working on the linux system it much more secure.

http://www.saic.com/news/jan00/news01-20-00.html

"SAIC worked with Microsoft Corp. to ensure that the Windows NT 4.0 operating system passed its C2 network security evaluation as overseen by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). The Windows NT 4.0 evaluation included servers and workstations operating in both networked and stand-alone modes."

Just so you are aware, it can take several years for security testing to be completed. It would be wise to research a little bit about what you are saying to ensure it is correct and not just some old rumour.

How about this, it's open source, yet microsoft still releases OS updates (95, 98, 98se, me...) yet no other company is allowed to release an OS using the code provided by microsoft and microsoft has a service in which people can report the fixes they have made and Microsoft includes/chooses to include it in the next upgrade, that way MS still makes more of a porfit every 6 months, and windows is clean, :)

BTW Windows 2K and ME or NT and 9x have differenc source codes, by this do they mean open up source code of ALL WINDOWS? or just 9x?

Bit more to it than that...
NT

Do you find the worlds greatest inventors giving away the secrets of there latest and greatest ideas - Nope! so why should microsoft, Microsoft wants to make money, after all it is a business isn't it! Everybody assumes that because Microsoft makes so much money that its somehow a bad thing, surely they only make money because the likes of us belive they have a genuinly useful product and we buy it, why should they want to or have to give it away free???

I agree while there's a little more to than what i'm gonna say it's still all the same...the only reason this whole monolpoly thing is around is because people liked the product and bought it. Microsoft is just a normal business who has made huge profits because people liked and bought their product. If you don't like it don't buy it. simple. While it could be good in many ways microsoft should not have to give "away their product." Mine as well start giving away cable tv

You obviously don't understand a thing that's going on. Everything that's happening to Microsoft right now, (the trial, etc) is NOT simply because MS is popular and everyone's trying to bring down the successful guys, nor is it because MS is a Monopoly. Only uneducated idiots think that's what this is about. What it's about, is whether or not MS ABUSED THAT MONOPOLY by using it to destroy competition in other fields to protect their self-interests. Whether or not they did that will only be decided in a court, not in a forum of idiots screaming "Save MS" (or "Kill MS"). Giving away their source code is a possible punishment SHOULD it be decided that MS DID break the law. No one with a head on their shoulders is suggesting MS should be punished if it's found that they didn't do anything wrong.

Open Source = Absolutely no security. Hackers would have a field day. There would be no trial and error with them. Some open source would be good, like non-vital systems. NO core access, no security, nothing that accesses the hardware directly. If I had the Windows source code, just think of the unstoppable viruses I could make. I could make a watch dog that would log every password, shutdown any persky Anti-Virus software your installing, embed myself inside the core kernel, so you couldn't touch me.

Well, making Windows open source could be a great thing to developper but could it be a good thing to home user ?

Just imagine how many upgrades from everywhere will appear, how many differents versions of Windows will be create, how many hole will be put by US Agency to enter our computer.

With one provider (Microsoft) you know that your upgrade is suppose to be fully compatible with your windows.

I just hope that it would make some good but I am scare for all those kid, or newbie user.

MS's competitors want them to open up Windows so they can get a good look at what a superior OS is made of, then use that info to clone features of Windows for their rudimentary systems, hehe. lol

I doubt that is what Linuxcare is saying, rather that they would not stigmatize an open-source version of Windows, merely because it was produced by Microsoft. Rather that they would view this as a positive step and would like to help “fix-up” windows, to make it even better.

I have to say - the Linux camp never misses a chance to put down and criticize Microsoft, their people, or their products. I really doubt that improving it is their real aim - I wholeheartedly agree with the anti-opensource movement, because the LAST thing we need is to gave 500 versions of Windows running around - and it's unrealistic to think any one would provide the best version - look at Java! Sun's version, then MS's, and now IBM and others are breaking off, offering their own versions - it's out of control! If the OS was like that - it would be a nightmare.

No, Windows has pretty much stolen a large part of their code. Let me remind you that Bill Gates didnt write Dr DOS on which Windows was built. There is also the controversy about Bill Gates and Mac. Windows is a superior to a lot of other operating systems, but few OS's would like to "peek" at MS's source. Let us remind you of Linux, which is still by far a better operating system than anything that Microsoft has when it comes to security, and system resources management. I think Microsoft has peeked at a lat of other OS's source code.

Hmmm.....I have to say that I DON'T want it to go opensource....NOT because I love windows (Actually, I prefer Linux...its easier, doesn't crash (or doesn't overwrite the whole hard drive for no reason like windows), and I can fix anything that is wrong with the operating system itself (to an extent). Now, I don't want Windows to go open source because for one thing, it would mean that half those errors/problems with windows MIGHT get fixed. Now granted, thats not good (that those errors don't get fixed), but in my opinion, if MS can't find those errors, more power to the OS that doesn't have errors. I have used Linux (Redhat and Slackware) on my personal computer for the past 2 years, with NO problems at all. (aside from some things not working, like Wine..but thats still in development) Whereas in Windows (9X, NT 4/5) I start playing a game and the system crashes (and this is a STABLE game too), or I try to read my email and it BSOD's me. This is also not a problem isolated to only my computer. Many of my friends have the same errors. I have updated my windows version as much as possible (Win9X SE, etc..) and it still happens. In my own OPINION, if MS goes opensource, alot of errors might get fixed, potentially making it a more 'likeable' system with less problems, which would make it even more dangerous to 'linux lovers' than ever. I say let them keep it the way it is, so things may never get fixed.

Linux, easier? Dang, talk about a bold faces lie.

And since when does Windows overwrite the harddrive, it only takes up the boot sector, so you have to go and download a bootmanager (a good free one is at www.xosl.org if you want it)

Windows doesn't crash if you know what the heck your doing, 99.9% of the Windows users think it is the OS's fault, when it is user error or 3rd party software. AND with Windows2000 and Windows Millennium Edition, it is darn near impossible to crash the system, even if you try, it's not too difficult to crash a Linux box. It is quite apparent that you are either a. incredibly dumb, or b. are lying more than Bill Clinton.

Windows was not built on DR DOS, (btw, it's a capital DR, not Dr, it stands for Digital Research, which was bought by Caldera)
Old Windows, 3.x, was built aruond MS-DOS, which was bought from a little hobbiest guy back in 1975-76 when MS and IBM started making deals. Windows9x isn't based on DOS, it may have certain calls to DOS based stuff, but it's not based on DOS (and Windows Millennium Edition doesn't even have DOS, which is based off the Win9x kernel)

Just so you know, Apple copied straight from Xerox, Xerox developed the GUI, they developed the mouse, and they didn't think it would sell, so Apple conned them into letting them take a peek.

while I think it would be great if microoft released the source for windows to the public, I don't see it happening. I mean it would be great, as then all those great folks that work so hard on linux could integrate full windows functionality and compatibility into upcoming releases of Linux. Then we could have the best of two worlds without having to use an emulator.

One needs to realize that a source code release of windows at this point would not do much to reign in a powerful microsoft. While it should be noted that opening the code would allow the win9x domination to be freed to other os's such as linux, the main core of microsoft's push for the future is win2k and winNT, which would be left closed under Gates' offer. Win9x is at the end of its life, and with win2k, a superior product with support for DirectX 7.0, is now a waste of space. Only an opening of win2k would microsoft be giving the community something of worth for the forseeable future.

One also has to conisder the integration with IE. Does IE count in this opening, or is it still a seperate product that would remain closed?

It you people thing MS would cough up the Windows source, you must be on crack.

Comments like this really upset me. Not only is it a useless waste of bandwidth, but whoever wrote it needs to re-take 2nd grade spelling. If you really think these people who are hoping for a release of the source code are on crack, elaborate on that point. I personally agree it would be a wonderful thing for MS to open their code for the software community. It would open up many opportunities for development, and have a posotive effect on the operating system. I do not forsee it happening in the near future, but maybe ol' Bill will prove me wrong!

I think it is a pathetic idea.
I personally don't want to use an OS that is open source, talk about open to hackers and whatnot, not to mention the number of virii that could be written for it.
Now maybe if they made a seperate version of Windows that would go open source, but definatly not the mainstream product.

One of the good things about Open Source is a sense of honesty related to the OS itself... How many bugs are really in Win2K? 63,000? 68,000? 100,000? half a million? in an Open Source environment there may be a half million bugs but at least we will know what they are and there will be 2 million developers working on eradicating those bugs so their software will run! The beauty of Linux is the community effort rather than the screw your neighbour attitude that has prevailed in the OS wars to this point. Imagine what kind of a Windows competitor OS2 would have been if IBM had Open Sourced it? A far superior OS has become a niche product...
Linux is Open Source and from what I have read over the last few years has a MUCH better track record when it comes to virii and security problems (Can you spell A-C-T-I-V-E-X boys and girls?)

Already prone to hackers and virii coders. Windows being as closed as it is still maintains a higher level of attacks (ie, virus and hack exploits), not to say that Linux/BSD/Macs and Unix variants are not. Though I don't believe that MS should open the whole 9x code. rather I feel they should at least release Thier API to anyone who feels they can add too or fix what services are currently offered under the OS. Win2k is nice I run both Pro and Server and have not seen many porblems with it (except my Memorex 2224 burner does not work under it, 98 yes, Linux yes, Windows 2000 nope). A cracker the proper name given to Hacker will always find some loop hole in whatever OS and exploit it, be it that OS open or Closed source. Support being offered by Linux care I feel would be a good option if any part of the OS is opened. MS could just as well Produce a "License Agreement" similiar to Apple's & Sun Own current offerings. Besides if MS open even the 9x code base to its OS, I think they would find a way to include that in an MCSD like certification anyway.

Peace
Trip Arcana

Add another important variable. It's the most widely used and known OS in the world, therfore it's very well known to hackers and crackers. Redhat, being the closest consumer OS has released several updates and fixes because more people started using it.

The most popular operating system in the world and you guys think Microsoft will make it open source? Not a chance in hell.

Most home users don't give a crap about an open source operating system. They use Windows because it's familiar, and there aren't 2 dozen versions of it floating around the net.

Why do you guys want it open source anyway? You've got Linux to work on. Work on getting Linux up to par with Windows and quit b****ing.

of course people go after windows by developing virii, etc. once linux gains some real ground, i'm sure the hackers will come a-calling. After all, who hacks an Apple IIe when a Cray is around? Linux is still small potatoes, and half-baked at that.

after reading some on the inane and miss informed comments here, I felt it was my duty to add my £0.02
(1) Opensource doesn't mean open to hackers - well not in the way that they mean (in my dictionary, hacker = someone who upon finding a piece of inefficent or broken code would grab the source, and make a quick fix (or hack) for it. Cracker = someone who would go about tryign to breach security, and gain unauthorised access to others systems). As everyone knows linux is opensource, and it also happens to be one of the most secure operating systems available. - ASK MICROSOFT, they run MSN Hotmail servers on linux!! As the code is opensource, it is much easier and quicker for an individual/organistation who upon finding a possible security hole to fix it, and post the news to the relavent places. therefore problems can be fixed in hours, rather than the months taken for Microsoft to fix a well known (and exploited) hole in IIS4.0).
(2) Opensourcing windows would help microsoft, as it would mean that thousands of developers would be effectively working for them free of charge, slashing development time, and costs. The endproduct would b be more stable, and efficent, due to the huge user base who would be able to test it.
(3) I would suggest that if Microsoft were to opensource Windows, they would make a law/rule/restriction so that companies with more than 25 employees must pay for licenses for Windows. This should keep everyone happy, as Microsoft would still get their huge license fees from the big multinationals, and the general public would get free windows.

(4) Some have stated that by opensourcing windows, we would end up with incompatible variants. This need not be true - look at linux, an application written for Mandrake linux 7 would work fine on RedHat 6. or if you use the sourcecode, and application written for a Pentium 2 running Slakware linux could easily be recompiled (with just 1 word - make ) for a Sun Sparcstation running Debian Linux... if microsoft made suggestions about the improvements they want to the windows kernel, and insist that all versions be based on this kernel, compatibility would not be a problem.

Hopefully this clears up a few things..

cpufreak

(please note, I have been using this nickname since 1993, and cpuguy is not a relation/friend/collegue...hell I don't even know the guy...,
in other words I AM NOT HIM)

Umm, no, Microsoft runs Hotmail on FreeBSD.

If you are refering to the Erata, that has been done since the begining... it is intrinsic in an OS design. Bugs are constatnly fixed, and security flaws are located and patched daily if not hourly. That does not apply to just RH, but to every Linux distribution out there. BSD very simular in nature. This isn't a flaw in design, but the genius of the model. With an OS project, every line of code is under scrutny of anyone who takes the time the parse the code. As a result instead of taking several months to release a service pack that needs to be recalled hours after its release because it causes more problems than it solves (NT and Office spring to mind), a patch can be implemented immediately. MS is warming up to this concept by utilizing windows update, but without peer critic of the code, it would be very difficult to squash all bugs. As a coder or manager of a project you would develop a tunnel vision of sorts and loose the ability to read the code objectivly.

Ryan

True, but the point being MS doesn't use MS for hotmail... they could never port it over to NT and when they tried it failed. Secondly, FreeBSD is an Open Sourced OS.

Hmmm... and OS-OS, is that anything like a Yo-Yo?

Ryan

Actually, Linux will probably never become a main competitor, being incompatible with today's software. I myself think it's a very good idea to open source Windows9x.

Well, I know MS will be porting over to Windows2000 for the hotmail servers shortly, they are already testing it, making sure everything is still functional.

Linux is not by any means the most secure, it is in all actuallity the lest secure due to it being open source, just because people don't write virii or even attempt to hack it doesn't mean it's secure.
People hack Windows, write virii for it, etc... because it is the most popular OS and, at least the half way decent hackers, crackers are just pieces of cow dung, are exploiting the problems with it so they CAN be corrected

hotmail runs on Solaris, not FreeBSD... totally different ballpark.

I remember when Hotmail was first bought by MS, they did try to port it to NT. Unfortunately the daily demand brought it to its knees and they switched back to Solaris.

I type a g instead of a k and I need to retake 2nd grade spelling? Ever heard of a typo? I said think not hope. I think it would be good if they did. Maybe not. Hackers would love to find all the security holes and bugs they don't already know about. BUT considering they still have at least one more release of the Win9x OS to go, and since anything they would release would be crippled, there is no way in hell. And yes, in my opinion you'd have to be on some kind of drugs to THINK they would.

Hotmail is run on BSD.