Microsoft urged: Open-source Windows 7 to 'undo past wrongs'
zdnet.com
zdnet.com
But just imagining that happening... Would be super crazy.
I however agree that's is not going to happen both because of the nightmare of relicensing 3rd party code, and because an OSS Win7 release with community updates and security patches (no telemetry) would probably displace a good number of Windows 10 installs in short time.
If closed source software that talks to the Internet is an inherent privacy risk, let's maybe start by focusing on Google Chrome and Android, which have access to much bigger pots of honey than Windows itself does these days.
In short, this seems to be one of those spots where all the FSF has is a hammer.
If Microsoft was as dedicated to open source as their recent PR pivot and thrust has lead us to think then they would have no problem taking on this monumental task.
this 'stupid' PR move from the FSF is only a response to a similiar PR move from MS.
This just looks silly.
People's time isn't free.
The other problem is open sourcing the Windows code would be also involve open sourcing its crazy huge build system and tooling — it’s not a simple makefile — which is probably another level of impractical.
They were able to get rid of a lot of Windows 1.0/Dos back-compat junk with the release of x64 (due to loss of native 16 bit support). I'm sure there's still some though.
My employer uses 32bit VDIs to run a few legacy applications.
It must be pretty expensive to port/test all of their patches/updates on something few use [0.70% per [0]). They already killed it on their server line (although it was silly on there with the low memory limits). Nvidia has already announced they're ending support[1].
[0] https://www.pcbenchmarks.net/os-marketshare.html
[1] https://www.extremetech.com/computing/267180-nvidia-ends-sup...
I noted in another comment that they have a similar problem with people wanting VB6 open sourced, because so many businesses rely on VB6 apps - some written internally or exclusively for their business.
Windows 10 (from what I remember) almost didn't support VB6, but in the end they included the runtime DLL to allow for the apps to work. I wonder if this is a part of the 32x thing? Seems a likely possibility...
VB6 and the companies relying on it might be an albatross around Microsoft's neck; for how much longer, I'm not sure.
I find it difficult to believe that Microsoft would keep Windows 10 x86 around if usage was really that low.
Backblaze found that about 4.5% of their customers use 32bit Windows in 2017[0].
And this is if Microsoft DID want to open source it, which if they were giving in to a demand from FSF, or trying to do it as part of a goodwill "Microsoft <3 Linux" initiative then you will quickly find that the costs far outweight the benefits.
There are probably lots of other reasons that MS won't open source an older version of their flagship product, but this "OMG licensed 3rd party code" excuse is overplayed (by lots of other companies, too) and needs to die.
Blender also used to be a wholly closed-source product; it was opened up after the source code was "liberated" via a Kickstarter-like crowdfunding initiative - and it's now a successful FLOSS project. It can happen.
Instead, Microsoft has been virtually forced to continue to include the VB runtime DLL in every version of Windows since, because there are so many businesses out there that rely on software developed in VB6 that can't (easily or cheaply) switch to something else.
Windows 10, from what I understand, almost became the first version to ship without it, but Microsoft relented under the pressure (maybe I'm misinformed here, though).
VB.NET is sufficiently different enough that conversion either isn't possible, or due to the source code not being available (or the 3rd-party company that wrote it not existing any longer as an entity - or the source code assets not available or whatnot due to dissolution) - conversion becomes nearly impossible, short of a very expensive reverse-engineering effort by another 3rd party.
In the petition:
> We want more proof that you really respect users and user freedom, and aren't just using those concepts as marketing when convenient.
How do you even define that ? It really seems like this was just setup to inflame people about Microsoft again. Yeah windows 7 is end of life.. ~10 years.. I would consider that pretty reasonable.
Demanding for the source in a petition ? That's quite unreasonable.
Ummm... except for all of the proprietary and valuable IP that is anyway shared by subsequent versions of Windows? It's not like they scrapped every bit of code when they started working on Win8, Win10 etc. Some bits of the control panel are pretty much unchanged since Windows NT!
There should be an award for understatement of the month.
This petition[0] is more about making a point than any realistic expectation of open sourcing Windows 7.
So open-sourcing Windows 7 is effectively open-sourcing Windows 10. I'd be very surprised if Windows 10 had no code from Windows 7. I'd also be surprised if Microsoft actually owns all the code/assets in Windows. Licensing is a thing.
Open-sourcing Windows 10 as a "current" product is requesting the source to everything Windows. That is a big ask. It would have to fit into a core strategic change for Microsoft.
Microsoft has likely got plans of its own to embrace and absorb Linux. Why should I as a Big Corporate with full licenses be forced to maintain separate Linux machines? Why can't Enterprise natively run Linux binaries? WSL is part of the answer to those questions but I'm fairly sure Microsoft has bigger plans. Who says they won't simply pivot and make Windows run on their own flavor of Linux or a defined distribution? Sounds crazy but... stranger things have happened and licensing is a real money maker. The ability to lock people to Windows is still very lucrative however. For the foreseeable future they are much more likely to run Linux on Windows and keep their existing control.
I seriously doubt Windows 7 will be open-sourced while Windows 10 remains closed-source.
I think a more appropriate ask would be to "please re-develop X technology in an open manner".
I don't think it sounds crazy at all. I've had the same feeling since WSL was released. And that feeling has gotten stronger since they showed of the Duo.
If they did pivot to Linux, they'd still need to support NT for a long time to come. They'd also need to write a win32 layer for Linux (WINE, as it is, wouldn't be enough) as well as compatibility shims for Windows drivers, etc. And after they'd done all this work, while still supporting the NT kernel, what have they gained? Little that can't be done already.
More likely is that they continue to port .NET and/or UWP so applications built with those technologies will be cross platform. This may eventually mean they no longer need Windows but could maintain a Microsoft branded Linux distro. But that wouldn't be "Windows" by any sensible definition of the term.
I think WSL (V1 and V2) has been showcasing just how bad it has become. From locking issues, to small file performance, to scheduler problems, and beyond.
Everyone said Microsoft would never dump the Trident rendering engine either (used in IE/Edge/WebUI Controls). And that was true, until it wasn't. They may not move to Linux tomorrow, but ten years from now as NT continues to get little love, and Linux sails ahead? We'll see...
But possible. Wine shows it is possible.
I don't know about your version of Windows, but mine looks like a resurrected zombie since Windows 95/98.
That said, parts of Windows 10 were leaked, and I believe Windows XP? was leaked before too.
Again, licensing is too important to Microsoft, let alone every other reason, eg copyright/trademarks. They'd hunt you down then Cease & Desist your business / identity back to the foolish-ideas stage or worse.
The software is 10 years old, MS bends over backwards to maintain backwards compatibility, and they gave Windows 10 upgrades to Windows 7 users.
And they still do, even though the upgrade period has official lapsed. I strongly doubt Microsoft will buckle to the type of these arguments being made by FSF. The list of demands read like they were written by a neurotic significant other.
That being said...
I really do hope Microsoft open sources Windows some day, but the problem is that the users that will enjoy the most freedom on day 1 would be black hats. Windows consists of MLOC that has never been publicly audited and it takes far longer to identify and install patches than it does to exploit a vulnerability.
If a logical argument that addresses the risks, as well the benefits that Microsoft would see, I am sure that Microsoft would at least enter into dialog about this. Even though RMS (and by association FSF) are fundamentally correct, I have yet to see coherent and reasonable communication originating from them in the Microsoft and FOSS discussion.
Besides, I don't see any person/people being able to understand such a complex feat of engineering (and legacy) sufficiently to maintain it for years to come.
I would assume that there is enough interest in maintaining Windows - especially commercial interest - that finding and funding a sufficiently large and knowledgeable team is actually not unrealistic. It's just unrealistic to assume that the source code will ever be published willingly by Microsoft as long as any part of it is a direct ancestor to a product they still sell.
As for the commercial interest part, just thinking about how video games' source codes are so rarely published saddens me a great deal. Even after the commercial interest is lost and the IP is no longer in use, companies don't really think much about preserving the source code.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/07/03/reactos_windows_res...
What about open sourcing, say, windows 95? That seems more achievable, and probably more helpful.
Compared to that, Windows 9x was less kludge and more a straightforward implementation of Win32, though of course lacking modern features.
The Windows NT4 source code leaked a while ago and can be found all over the internet. Of course that doesn't really help ReactOS because they officially can't use it, but that's probably the closest we will get to MS open sourcing Windows.
Obviously this will never ever happen for corporate, licencing and government reasons but a man can dream...
Maybe those 8,000+ supporters should go contribute to ReactOS.
Considering the state of telemetry and adware in Windows 10, not to mention the history of forcing updates and the recent burying of the ability to setup a non-live account, I'd have to say that only a fool would believe they respect users and user freedom.
Edit: fixed typo
It is somewhat amazing to me how ignorant some people in this industry can be of why Windows is still used.
Maybe a modern day equiv: Right now there's no exit option for AWS unless you just happen to build an insulating layer with kubernetes and many other layers of indirection.
Windows supports more hardware than either of its competitors, from the very cheap commodity crap to the crushingly expensive and proprietary. Hardware usually just works with Windows, and even if it doesn't, it's an automatic driver download away to get it working.
It's also easier to use than Linux and it's cheaper to use and easier to administer than MacOS.
Problem is, opensourcing Windows 7 under a permissive license might make ReactOS itself irrelevant.
Microsoft spent years removing a lot of the NSCA Moasic stuff, and there is a good chance they own all of the Titan/Edge code. With their browser switching to Blink/Chromium, surely they could put in a few months of effort to try and make it publishable / open source.
Opening sourcing their entire operating system is never going to happen and the petition is a useless publicity stunt to remind people that MS doesn't really care about open source. I wish the FSF had asked for something more useful/realistic instead.