Based mainly on this thread:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...hreadid=322735
I decided to ask you guys this question:
Will Micro$ost wake up (ever-ever) and make a part of their soft open-source?

I basically am a to OSS and Linux, so don't blame me for posting a stupid question, .

That depends on your definition of open source. If you listen to Microsoft's definition, they already have some of their software as open source. Of course, that just means that you're tainted if you look at their source. They can sue you later if you write anything on your own.

A better question would be will Microsoft ever adopt the ideas of FOSS or FLOSS? And that answer is NO.

they wouldn't make any money by going open-source, so i doubt they would do that...

taking the next step (going free) would be an even lesser possibility, IMHO...

here's the open source definition:

http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php


BTW, keep in mind that open source software is not the same as free software:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-s...r-freedom.html

the day Bill Gates gets a gold grill for his teeth and starts reimbursing all the people that bought Windows ME. Thats when it will happen.

Why would they? Open source software isn't necessarily the best alternative in the computing world, it is simply one alternative, one that most people here subscribe to.

Now I'm not saying the closed source is the best option either, I personally don't care a lot. I just choose the options that work best for me and run with it

Open source as in it's definition, obviously.

And they could only make an old version of Windows Open-Source (Win98, for example). This way they will see that open-source developing from all-over the world is faster and more error-free.

I hate to rain on the anti-MS parade, but MS HAS released software under genuine, OSI-approved open-source licenses. Genuinely useful software, that's attracted a community of OSS developers to it.

Also, even if Gates & Co. all sudddenly saw the light and decided FOSS was the wave of the future and the way they wanted go go, they COULDN'T just throw open the entire Windows source code.

The Windows code contains proprietary software owned by other companies and used by MS under license. In order to open Windows, they would have to remove or completely rewrite large swathes of code.

That's not to say that they couldn't do a hell of a lot more, or interfere a hell of a lot less. But to paint MS as totally non-FOSS is just plain wrong.

"Reality: What a gyp"

I think you're contradicting yourself.

And besides that, I think we made the point that open source is NOT what most people think it means.

well, if MS was able to make MORE MONEY by going open-source, believe me that would be enough reason for them to do it... of course that isn't the case, because going F/OSS is not compatible with maintaining a monopoly, hence they won't do it... they don't care which is the "best" option, they just care which one gives them more profits...

Me? Nope.

The original question was "Will Micro$ost wake up (ever-ever) and make a part of their soft open-source?" - the answer, despite what the instant torrent of anti-MS drivel stated, is in fact "Yes, in fact they already have."

The point was made further down that they could/should throw open Windows, the complete OS. That can't be done, as some of the software in Windows is proprietary and MS isn't allowed to open-source it.

They can (and have) open source some stuff, but even if they wanted to, they couldn't open up Windows as a whole.

they already see that everyday!!!

Indeed. Some of you may find the following interesting reading...
http://www.forbes.com/execpicks/2005...0526linux.html

I don't agree with the way Microsoft runs their business (morally) and I love open-source, but I think that dreaming about a day when all software is open-source is wrong. Unless a serious paradigm shift occurs in the way the world works (e.g. the removal of the concept of 'money'), this will never happen. Open-source software relies on proprietary software and vice versa. It might be better to consider 'how much' software should be open source and 'how much' proprietary (or for that matter, 'which sorts').

My 2p...

Absolutely. For software to be truly free, there must be the possibility for people to be free to make proprietary software.

There's nothing wrong with that. If people really prefer to buy non-free software in exchange for the benefits it has - such as support or ease of use - then they should be free to make that choice. Most Linux fans agree with this, including Linus himself.

The current problem is that MS & co are trying to establish a total monoploy, to take away people's freedom to make that choice.

People can only have free choice when they HAVE a choice. I personally think Linux wouldn't be nearly as good as it is today if it weren't competing with MS. There's nothing wrong with MS and Windows existing. It's their attempts to wipe out FOSS that are wrong.

i believe the main reason microsoft won't go open source is simple: MONEY.

they make more money if they don't, so they won't... if they were able to make more money by going open source, then it wouldn't matter how many companies have proprietary-licensed software in windows, microsoft would use it's money to deal with the situation, like they always do...

either way, i actually envision windows becoming a proprietary layer for UNIX cores in the future... and whether that UNIX core is free or proprietary would be completely up to the customer... i say this because although it seems microsoft will always be a step ahead in the desktop/games/cute arena, they make terrible operating systems and they know it (they aren't that stupid)... i actually wouldn't be surprised if in the future microsoft's windows competition shifted from "gnu/linux" to things like "kde" and "gnome"... LOL...