What is Digg?86 Comments
- latova, on 10/12/2007, -11/+70You gotta be kidding. They just ADDED restrictions onto vista, making you unable to install it on an upgraded computer unless you buy a new license. I have a feeling open source and microsoft are never going to happen.
- neoform, on 10/12/2007, -9/+30a feeling?
i can guarrantee it'll never happen. if MS open sourced their OS then you can bet your ass there will suddenly be 15 windows clones that run windows apps and will probably end up being far better than the 'real' windows which would do nothing but cause MS to lose their monopoly on the OS market. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21Might as well have titled it, "Why Microsoft might give away money when they don't have to".
On another note, what the heck has this author been smoking?
FTA: "Mactel is a disaster for Apple and Linux has lost most of its market momentum."
Sure buddy, keep on taking those Redmond zombie pills... - meltingrobot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17When Microsoft goes Open Source, it will be because they are ending. Going Open will be a last attempt for them. It won't happen until Microsoft is no longer profitting.
- OrangeTide, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17There is only one version of Linux that anyone actually uses. and it's at http://kernel.org/
if your complaint is that there are 100 ways to install Linux and operating system utilities, then yes. it is true. you have lots of choices. LSB (Linux Standard Base) compliant distributions ensure that binary applications are compatible between distributions. - GottIstTot, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14Wow, I wish I could flag you as a troll. The internet runs on open source; ever heard of Apache? What about SMTP, hey, or WC3 (e.g., html, xml, CSS, ...). Seriously, open source and open standards make the internet possible. The "FOSS fundies" only bash stupidity in all in forms. It just so happens that one of those forms happens to MicroSoft at the moment, and your post. Congratulations.
- kurrent, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12microsoft and open source do belong in the same sentence.
- ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11They do if the sentence reads, for example, MS hates open source.
- consonance, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Yes, Microsoft is pricing Windows Vista Ultimate at $400 and adding new restrictions and DRM because their future is in open source. How did we not see this coming?
- sembetu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8WTF!?: FTA: "...as Microsoft transitions to the PowerPC architecture..."
Have I been hiding under a rock or something? When did people start talking about that? - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11If you really hate open source then you can take action and log off the internet now.
- oxyrubber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@KWhat
Technically it stops after 2 copies. You are allowed to migrate Vista to an upgraded computer ONCE (install on first computer, upgrade hardware and install on upgraded computer, EULA says you have no more upgrade privileges).
That is written in the new EULA, but I havne't heard whether or not they have any software checks to make sure this is the case.
BTW - this restriction is not present in the uber-expensive versions (Business or Corporate or whatever they are calling them). It is guranteed to be present in Vista Home. - SPThom, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I was wondering myself where both of those claims were coming from. In the past nine months, I've bought two Macs and installed about six working copies of Linux (1 desktop + 5 servers). And people around me (friends, coworkers, etc.) are picking up Macs more and more.
- whiteguysamurai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Don't turn this into a contest.
You may know people who know people, but if you knew someone who works for Microsoft, you would realize how talented they really are.
Only the best. - Yashu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Since when was the desktop world transitioning to PowerPC? This article doesn't make sense. The only reason the new consoles are using PPC is because IBM agreed to build custom solutions and allow the ownership of those designs... Maybe I am confused in what the article is saying.
It makes me dislike microsoft, though, to think that they are purposefully pushing the greatest amount of anti-piracy annoyance possible before the market is effected. I would rather a company woo my money by treating me like a valued user rather then some hated criminal. (linux, osx, *still* do not offer enough to replace my desktop, unfortunately, but getting better.)
I don't mind microsoft's products, I mind how they have been treating thier customers lately. - KWhat, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13"It's not having to BUY another copy, you just have to re-activate. Get your facts straight."
Vistas license stops at the first computer its installed on, That means you need to BUY another license (which is effectively another copy)! - coder316, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The article constantly talked about Windows' needs to become compatible with the PowerPC CPU architecture. Ironically, even Apple is going AWAY from PowerPC (with their recent transition to x86). Compatibility to PowerPC is completely unnecessary and a waste of time/money. x86 is still the dominate CPU architecture and will be for a very long time - Intel and AMD base their businesses around it.
- RaistlinMajere, on 10/12/2007, -10/+14Lamest story ever.
BREAKING News: Kim Jong Il considers stepping down, endorses popular elections. - VyRuZ, on 10/12/2007, -11/+16Wow... you are an ignorant mofo.
- lordsandwich, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Mactel is a disaster? Eh? Sales have been up since the new lineup was released!
Maybe Apple won't ever be a real threat to MS, but that's far from being a disaster. - linuxlizard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The original Netscape code for Mozilla was a terrible mess when it was first released. It took a lot of time before it was good enough to use.
I don't think any code MS might release would be any different.
I write software/firmware for a living. If we took our current code and open sourced it, it would be quite embarassing. Not a lot of swear words but some crappy architecture. - zeptobyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Microsoft was one of the very first proponents of closed software. I highly doubt this.
- alexmipego, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Seriously I don't think it will happen anytime soon. They didn't even opensource .Net that is a far more "abstract", easy to copy (like mono does) and with far more imediate use for developers.
OpenSourcing Windows in the true sense of the word would eventually kill it. Windows strong points are based on something Linux is lacking, standards. Not public standards like XHTML or XML, but standards like you knowing any Windows XP has that exact same API and even the exact same bugs. Opensourcing it, would mean cloning and that would create exactly the same mess we have today when packaging things to Linux, you need to create one package for every distro (and even for architecture, but windows suffers the same problem).
What they could do it to release the source code of the API, allowing you to see how it works and eventually to submit patches which they could approve, or not. Of course there would be people "cloning" because at the least it was needed to test the submitted patches - but if their license disallowed the sell or redistribution of it, it would be half way. Besides, they could make the kernel close-source and to include some sort of activation that would prevent clones from beeing distributed. - SpoBo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5lol wtf :D I swear ... the author of this article must have smoked just a little too much pot. It's not going to happen people ... not now, not ever.
If anything Microsoft will try to sell you an operatingsystem that you can't even modify. When you boot your PC in Windows WhateverTheyllCallTheNextVersion (my vote is on WeKnowItsCrapButYouWillBuyItAnywayItHasPrettyWindowsLOL) will download everything from a local operating server. That way you'll never get infected by virsuses ... w00t. At least that's what they'll use to scare customers. What they don't tell you is that you'll lose all possibilities to modify your OS or do anything remotely illegal with it. It's a bit like Bush and 9/11 in fact. The only operatingsystem I see in the future (for customers) is Linux and OS X. - killerofkiller, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@ Orange
Boy, i think you might be legally retarded
/end Sean Connery voice - linuxlizard, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"It's a fragmented mess with more 'Versions' than you can shake a stick at. No
one is in control, and as a result you have to muck around with programming o
get anything to work."
I would like to point at that Microsoft isn't exactly perfect in this regard
either. They are one company in control of their software and you still have
to muck around with programming to get anything to work.
Case in point: Windows CE vs Windows Smart Phone vs Windows mobile. Almost, but not quite, compatible with each other. I tore my hair out trying to write apps for those three platforms under one code base.
Win98 vs WinME vs WinNT vs WinXP vs WinVS USB drivers anyone? An unholy mess from what I hear.
I work in printers. MS has now come up with a brand new scheme for doing the
print architecture. WSA or some *****. In order to be "logo compliant", we have to throw money at it in order to be able to support MS's newest fragmented mess. It's worth pointing out they have different architectures on Win9x, Win2k, WinXP. It's a fragmented mess.
At least the fragmented mess under OSS I can look at the underlying system and understand how to use the underlying system. I can figure out how to write a Linux kernel USB device driver by looking (a) at other device drivers and (b) the kernel level OHCI/EHCI drivers themselves. - IEatHamburgers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It could be open source, but does that necessarily mean that Microsoft would have to make it free? Maybe every time somebody sells a copy of Windows (or a derivative) a license stipulation would mean the person who sells the copy must send money to Microsoft or else the guy would be selling illegally. Compiling the code shouldn't cost anything, but virtually everyone will save themselves the hassle of doing so if the price is low enough, and Microsoft would still be making money through this "distribution tax," even if it was less.
I'm not sure it's even possible to do this, but if it could be done then Windows would be cool again, and it would serve the purpose of eliminating one of Linux's major selling points (though Linux would still exist) and Apple would have problems if enough smart programmers out there release features that make Windows superior to OS X.
I'm not a programmer, lawyer or tech employee so I'm probably just talking out of my ass though :P - celticeric, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah. Mactel a disaster? Linux losing momentum? I had to check my calendar to make this wasn't April 1st. And Microsoft moving it's OS to PowerPC? And easy to pirate apps for a network computer that evolves from the Xbox? This guy smokes dope.
- jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Paul Murphy is a muppet. He clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. 90% of that artcile is factually incorrect and couldn't be further from the truth.
And, just to point out a glaringly obvious reason why it would never happen: there's too much commercial non-Microsoft code in Windows... just the same reason why OS/2 can't be open source, even if IBM wished it to be. - diggapleaze, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4while agree that this story is lame as hell, alot of people do forget that what made Windows sell so damn much was it's relative "openness" to x86 hardware, i.e. rather than running a proprietary OS on top of propritary hardware, the OS could be installed on any off-the-shelf commoditized PC parts.
But given microsoft's monopolistic dominance over the OS market, there is absolutely no reason for them to change their strategy so drastically. - webtron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4What a terrible writer! First we're talking about copying things, then we're debating moving between processors (with no justification for anything mentioned) and then he's asking about what Microsoft will do about Java?
He still hasn't explained why MacOS X and Linux aren't reason enough to switch. I know countless people who have switched to the Mac in recent years and trends show an increase in market share for Apple.
This guy is looking to work at Microsoft. He's just on the M$ bandwagon. - rob3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2MY ARSE
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I could see MS doing a fair amount of open source software, but not Windows.
- drKAvNgr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yes... we built an empire off of software that we sell and make people buy.. lets throw it all away by making it free!
*****. - Luuvitonen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Way back like less than 20 days ago?
- Majin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2ya open source windows isnt gona happen in this life....
- whiteguysamurai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think some aspects of the next windows system should be open, like security.
But the kernel should stay closed, or in the least only open to professionals.
The weakest point in open source is the ability for anyone to edit critical systems without skill to do so properly, and you end up with a mess.
If anyone remembers there was a popular Chinese Linux called ASPLinux,
It's still around i think, and it was terrible.
Not because of it's redhat roots, but because so many people attempted to "fix it" with no authority to do so, and it ended up being a real mess.
What i'm getting at is, when it comes to the kernel it's past the average Finnish basements dwellers skills, and should be edited by only the cream of the crop
And even if windows is thought to be a running joke on the internet, it's far more sophisticated than anyone here, or at slashdot could ever do. - schappsj, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9buried. article is inaccurate
- Splitt3rxx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"why most digg stories have no credibility"
- nalf38, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2With all due respect, I think OrangeTide has a point, though he may have stated it a little bluntly. Also, there is a difference between open standards and open source programs.
Many of the GUI-oriented applications that we use on our Linux/BSD desktops are open source, but they also have a profit motive: aside from hardware driver support, Firefox and OpenOffice are the two applications that make switching to open source a viable option for the average user. There wouldn't be much open source momentum for the desktop without those two applications.
For that matter, corporations like Novell, IBM, Adaptec, Intel, SGI, and countless others all had a profit motive for contributing to the Linux kernel, and it probably wouldn't be the high-quality kernel it is today without them. Lots of companies pay kernel devs' salaries just work on the kernel full-time. The same with other projects, like KDE.
If we all want to find out what a completely corporation-free operating system would look like, we need only look to RMS' fifteen-year-old red-headed stepchild: Hurd. It works...sort of.
The idea that open-source is produced without corporate aid is a fallacy. - itanshi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1you know, it might be good for them to make win 3.11 up to win 98 open source, not like they care about em anymore.
- Stemp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Open Source doesn't mean Gratis nor Free (Libre)
- kaod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What? PowerPC architecture? Where did that come from, and why would they ever dump their x86 codebase? With apple dumping PowerPC's, the processor probably won't live much longer.
Keep in mind Microsoft was the largest contributor in making the software market a proprietary gig. It's their business model. Even if this crack-pot theory were to take off, I don't think MS could internally handle such a large switch-over. - malkir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This author is a tool and doesn't have a clue!
- nalf38, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1yeah, totally a giant load of beetle dung. PowerPC? Why switch to a dying PC architecture? Makes no sense. The new Mactels may be an engineering disaster, but people are buying them like hotcakes. And last time I checked, more people have at least heard about Linux than ever before.
- Madnashua, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"one that's already gotten past the Communistic notions behind Open source"
communistic?? have you even used linux/open source software?! - vaxguru, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thurrot explained the whole Vista license thing. He says they just made it more clear, compared with XP's EULA. The process is very smiliar to that of XP's.
A phonecall to MS Support will sort out activation, if you have infact changed hardware in your pc. - regeya, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't think it's as infeasable as it may seem; after all, Bill Gates is leaving and the DOJ is sure to start sabre-rattling again at some point. I think Apple's proven that it's possible to use FOSS components to put together a great operating system, and it's not as if Windows is free of FOSS software, now is it?
What better way to downsize and rid themselves of the monopoly stigma than to can a few workers and start living off the work of college undergrads?
OK, scrap that. What better way, then, to rid yourself of the monopoly stigma than to downsize and start embracing outside software rather than giving in to NIH Syndrome all the time? - Ascus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1IMHO, to continue microsoft's dominance on PC, the lowest end Vista home release will be free, similar to the Express Editions of the development systems. That way they give enough to be more useful thatn the open source to the casual user, but the people that really use the OS, they will charge for it.
- psilanthropist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2you need to go get your head examined mate !
-
Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is