Microsoft: An Open Source Windows Is ‘Definitely Possible’

[Petrovic]

Content source

http://www.wired.com/2015/04/microsoft-open-source-windows-definitely-possible/

MICROSOFT’S SOFTWARE EMPIRE rests on Windows, the computer operating system that runs so many of the world’s desktop PCs, laptops, phones, and servers. Along with the Office franchise, it generates the majority of the company’s revenues. But one day, the company could “open source” the code that underpins the OS—giving it away for free. So says Mark Russinovich, one of the company’s top engineers.

“It’s definitely possible,” Russinovich says. “It’s a new Microsoft.”

Full Article

 

[aamoos]

I think it will ruin the Windows and Microsoft as well.

 

[Ramona]

I love the idea

 

[Deleted member 21043]

If Windows becomes open source then more exploits will be made since malware writers will have access to the code to try to find vulnerabilities more easily and use them for malicious purposes.

 

[illumination]

If Windows becomes open source then more exploits will be made since malware writers will have access to the code to try to find vulnerabilities more easily and use them for malicious purposes.

I kind of ride the fence on that statement, as open source code allows more eyes on the code.

 

[LabZero]

For me it will be Open Source only when will give the source code to ...

 

[Deleted member 21043]

I kind of ride the fence on that statement, as open source code allows more eyes on the code.

I misunderstood this post (sorry). You mean you agree (with the quoted post)?

In response to my last post here, there are positives to it of course. Others could help enhance things (including Security), add new features, fix bugs etc.

 

[Secondmineboy]

Microsoft definitely needs to work on security which could be faster and better with more people in development on Windows.

On the other side more people could find security breaches to create Malware for them.

On the other hand again security leaks could be fixed faster.

 

[Deleted member 21043]

For me it will be Open Source only when will give the source code to ...

If it becomes open source then the code would be shared. It's not open source yet, therefore they won't share yet. It's not defininite it will be shared anyway, of course if it is then that's all good and nice, but there are negatives they have to think about as well as the positives before they go any further (if it's being considered).

I think it will ruin the Windows and Microsoft as well.

Hmm, possible. I guess we'll have to wait and see if it one day does become open source, and what happens when it does.

 

[LabZero]

If it becomes open source then the code would be shared. It's not open source yet, therefore they won't share yet. It's not defininite it will be shared anyway, of course if it is then that's all good and nice, but there are negatives they have to think about as well as the positives before they go any further (if it's being considered).


Hmm, possible. I guess we'll have to wait and see if it one day does become open source, and what happens when it does.

In fact it seems strange to me that could be come Open Source,in this case the source code would not be more owner but free and accessible to all

 

[Chromatinfish 123]

Pros:
- Many developers can pitch in and help Microsoft develop a better OS
- We can get free copies of Windows
- If Microsoft lets go of Windows, perhaps we will see an open-source Microsoft Office suite as well!

Cons:
- Microsoft could potentially collapse, putting investors at risk
- More potential malware developed "for" Windows, as the code is free-for-all
- Since Linux systems are already open-source, Microsoft may lose millions of users because Linux is much safer and they are on Windows only because they had a license and want it to be worth it.

 

[illumination]

I misunderstood this post (sorry). You mean you agree (with the quoted post)?

In response to my last post here, there are positives to it of course. Others could help enhance things (including Security), add new features, fix bugs etc.

Yes basically "on the fence" , means i could see either way, it becoming a problem, or just the opposite with many eyes on it.

 

[illumination]

- Since Linux systems are already open-source, Microsoft may lose millions of users because Linux is much safer and they are on Windows only because they had a license and want it to be worth it.

The only things that makes Linux "more safer" then windows is the fact that windows carries a larger audience, and thus more preferable to be targeted, and the fact that Linux out of the box with most distro's are set up without root access enabled "the equivalent of running a standard account as opposed to an Admin". Matter of fact, because many believe that Linux is so safe, they could easily find themselves in trouble "from being too lax", and the fact that many know Linux quite well and how to exploit it.

 

[FreddyFreeloader]

Aren't Chromium and Firefox open source? Ublock, too.

 

[jamescv7]

Aren't Chromium and Firefox open source? Ublock, too.

Yes there are both open-source program

------------------------------

Well I'm not pretty suprise, as they planned their .NET to be open source as developmental tools; however their revenues will totally decrease since donation is optional for users.

Since hackers wanted for lots of money then the value of Windows to be crack is literally different if its an open source OS and nothing will be special as its define to provide the vital codes.

 

[Chromatinfish 123]

The only things that makes Linux "more safer" then windows is the fact that windows carries a larger audience, and thus more preferable to be targeted, and the fact that Linux out of the box with most distro's are set up without root access enabled "the equivalent of running a standard account as opposed to an Admin". Matter of fact, because many believe that Linux is so safe, they could easily find themselves in trouble "from being too lax", and the fact that many know Linux quite well and how to exploit it.

I guess you're right. Macs are safer too only because they have a smaller user audience. Even when I use my macbook, I still use Adguard (but no Antivirus because it impacts too much).