What do you guys think? Would open source Windows be a good thing?
There would be no reason to use any other OS anymore. I'm looking forward to it.
I don't understand what's the problem with open source windows, there're a billion linux distros already, what's stopping you from making a custom distribution of the open sourced windows?
>implying linux isn't better on servers either way
Besides that windows servers licenses wouldn't be free.
*nix (including os x and bsd) is also better for a plethora of other reasons.
fsf is worse than corporations.
At least, proprietary software is honest, you know what you can do and what not, in clear language.
Rms has mastered the art of dishonest language and mental gymnastics, twisting definitions to match his wicked view of the world.
He turned software into personal propaganda, and even raped the english language along the way, to fit with his goal.
He's cancerous, just like his metastasizing license.
If you want free, use BSD.
I wonder why *BSD has a smaller market share even on servers, maybe cause you idiots will gladly be slaves to companies and let them profit from your work.
RMS is a little insane but claiming BSD is somehow better is idiotic.
Enjoy letting Microsoft take your code and lock it away in proprietary software, you delusional BSD fucking idiots.
Did you even stop to think for TWO GODDAMN SECONDS about the horrible ramifications of your nonfree license? Yes, it's nonfree, because it can be used for nonfree purposes. It's horrible and it's cancer. Fuck off, BSD idiots.
>I wonder why *BSD has a smaller market share even on servers
1. it doesn't
2. legal troubles at its beginnings
>you idiots will gladly be slaves to companies and let them profit from your work
Everybody profits from BSD work because it's a free gift to the community.
Not everybody's an entitled bitch demanding other people's code, like you.
>Not everybody's an entitled bitch demanding other people's code
Then don't use GPL'd code, dumbass. Not everybody is an entitled bitch that wants to make money from other people's code.
How long ago was that?
Yeah the companies sure do, as for me being "entitled" I'm not, GPL has proven to be better for the community, see linux.
This thread just proves how GNUfags are the SJWs of the technology world.
>stop oppressing us with your non-free licenses!
>you don't agree with us? Go die!
>you're only free if you agree with our warped definition of freedom
>>you're only free if you agree with our warped definition of freedom
>freedom from slavery and tyranny
>warped definition of freedom
go fuck yourself.
You people are fucking pieces of shit.
Just fuck yourself, jesus fuck.
>Yeah the companies sure do
You profit too.
That's truly "everyone", no strings attach.
Maybe you are too accustomed to the gpl conditionals and ifs and buts, so you might need some time to familiarize with the new, unconditional free.
not that guy but what exactly is wrong with slavery?
I mean if you're like homeless and have a huge fucking debt you should be able to become a slave or summn like that, that way you're not only actually contributing to society, but paying your debts and helping your masters
>all greeks turn into slaves
>nothing of value was lost
>freedom from slavery and tyranny
You stupid fuck, that's not similar at all.
The BSD version is "nobody can force you to be a slave to someone, but if you get off on it, suit yourself, you're an adult".
The GPL version is "Eww, why do you wanna be a slave to someone? You're undermining our political system, you're not allowed to do that! Do as we say, so as to be "free" ".
Open source Windows isn't important. Not in the greater scheme.
What can people do with an open source Windows? Improve ReactOS? Who gives a shit about ReactOS?
The single most important contribution Microsoft can make to open source at this very moment is to open source the entire .Net Framework.
The only reason I use Windows is compatibility. I hate everything about it, from the aesthetics to the bloat to the command line to the UI, but I still need it because I run Windows software. Making Windows open source would mean Wine would soon have nearly perfect Windows compatibility due to just copying Windows code. So rather than killing Linux, open-source Windows would finally let me use better systems.
So it gets the main advantage of Linux, the open-source nature, but it also gives Linux the main advantage of Windows, the exclusive software. Someone like me who prefers Linux due to what I believe is a fundamentally better design would then have absolutely no reason to use Windows ever again.
It would absolutely be a good thing. People who like Windows get freedom, and people who don't like Windows get compatibility.
Unix is old, but is fundamentally well-designed. Oldness isn't a problem if it was designed right the first time around.
And Linux is not Unix. Linux was first released in '91, I believe, and most of the components of modern distros were written much later. It's like Unix, but it has no Unix code and has some major architectural differences.. You're comparing '90s to '90s, not '90s to '60s.
Of course, it's a pointless discussion since Plan 9 blows both out of the water.
this is probably the only real benefit.
if MS does go full open source then Wine suddenly becomes 1000% better than what it currently is, because now they can just copy over what they need.
to the every day windows end user it will mean absolutely nothing, but to those in these kinds of situations it's definitely a game changer.
although i can almost guarantee that even if they do go open source, they won't get this level of open.
Look at what pfsense is doing. They're demanding copyright assignment for all new contributions - aka the right to make the code proprietary themselves at any time. They've also deleted the source repositories for the build tools for pfsense, and have sued people for distributing modified pfsense builds with the name pfsense attached. Ultimately that resulted in a fork of the entire project called opnsense.
>and have sued people for distributing modified pfsense builds with the name pfsense attached
Literally every open source project that isn't some fly-by-night development does that.
>distributing a modified, unofficial, and potentially dangerous package under the name of a official package
>release the world's best operating system as open source
>neckbeards who aren't good enough at programming to get paid make a billion shitty different versions with a bunch of incompatibilities because muh freedum
>fragment the community and set progress back years
I actually agree with this.
Also I find it hilarious how linux users start screaming about "free as in free speech!" as soon as MS announce the could open up, whilst the rest of the time they are praising steam for propitiatory and completely closed games since it's the only thing that will keep GNU/Linux above 1% desktop usage. I say hilarious but it's actually embarrassingly pathetic.