Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Could Microsoft switch to Linux?

Filed under
Linux
Microsoft

You'd expect, as my friend Preston Gralla did, that when someone says "proprietary software is eventually going to be doomed," and that Microsoft's future might best be served in releasing its own version of Linux, that he'd be a Linux fan. Wrong: this prophet of Windows doom and gloom was Keith Curtis, a former Microsoft Research staffer. Could he be right? I think the answer is yes and no.

Yes, proprietary software is on the decline. Forget about the free software ideology that holds that free access to code is morally right: businesses have figured out that not only does open source tend to produce better code, it's cheaper to produce it. Economic reality has made even Microsoft to, ever so reluctantly, embrace some open-source projects.

Sure, you have to share the fruits of your efforts in open-source development — but you end up creating better code faster. As many developers have discovered, it's a lot easier to build on top of other programmers' good work than waste time with proprietary software development's constant reinvention of the wheel.

Rest Here




Isn't that the oldfashioned mantra we're have been taught...

... to believe in?

"You need proprietary technology of methods or design to protect your intellectual properties."

Besides "intellectual property" being one of the most obscure of terms, since when do you need proprietary stuff to protect your so called intellectual properties? Why make an incoherent mess as if patents, copyright and licences are the same?

Library and compilers are used by proprietary software as well, it's not like every software developer is creating his/her own set of libraries and compilers. If it's shared or not doesn't change it's license. I can get proprietary software which depends on none-proprietary libraries. If they're installed system wide as shared ones or bundled together with the proprietary parts is quite irrelevant.

...

PCI buses replaced by USB 3.0? This doesn't make any sense at all. USB 3.0 is connected to some bus. As for USB 3.0 you need to use a PCI-Express bus at least, something that at the moment means adjustments to motherboard design, because traditionally you didn't have channels and hence bandwidth enough for full throughput of what we now will have, Sata 6.0 and USB 3.0. An USB 3.0 interface can't live its own life and hence it can't replace the channel its connected to.

...

"Linux kernels can not do internet yet; it needs a browser for Linux." Damn, all Linux systems without a browser are isolated from networks! What you write doesn't make any sense here; what has MS Sharepoint to do with a pure Linux kernel in the first place?

To me it looks like you had a too good Friday night.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

More in Tux Machines

Firefox OS media-casting stick strikes Kickstarter gold

The first Firefox OS based media player has arrived on Kickstarter, in the form of a $25 open-spec HDMI stick that supports Chromecast-like content casting. The Matchstick, which has already zoomed past its Kickstarter campaign’s $100,000 funding goal, with 28 days still remaining, was teased back in June by Mozilla developer evangelist Christian Heilmann. The unnamed prototype was billed as an open source HDMI stick that runs Mozilla’s Linux-based Firefox OS and offers casting capabilities. Few details were revealed at the time except that the device used the same DIAL (DIscovery And Launch) media-casting protocol created by Netflix and popularized by Google’s Chromecast. Read more

Open source history, present day, and licensing

Looking at open source softwares particularly, this is a fact that is probably useful to you if you are thinking about business models, many people don't care about it anymore. We talk about FOSS, Free and Open Source Software, but if we really are strict there's a difference between free software and open source software. On the left, I have free software which most typically is GPL software. Software where the license insures freedom. It gives freedoms to you as a user, but it also requires that the freedoms are maintained. On the right-hand side, you have open source software which is open for all, but it also allows you to close it. So here we come back to the famous clause of the GPL license, the reciprocity requirement which says, "If I am open, you need to be open." So software that comes under the GPL license carries with it something that other people call a virus. I call it a blessing because I think it's great if all software becomes open. Read more

Leftovers: Software

Proprietary

today's howtos