billy wrote:Why doesn't MS go OSS? Open source does not mean free. Profit could still be made. Business could go on *in a new respectable fashion* and shareholders could be happy. MS could be a *very* significant contributor, and consumers would benefit. We as developers (outside of MS) would benefit. I submit that there would be no more a significant contributor (as a business entity) to the open source community than MS. So why don't they? What do you think?
I think it's a great idea. MS already has a huge head-start in understanding the code, and they could leverage themselves with application development. Since Windows is already on 95% of existing pc's, they could retain their strength by offering services, upgrades and programs that would be way ahead of the competition.
Of course making it open source also means that Windows would begin to evolve beyond Redmonds control. I think that's a good thing. Besides, I hate to burst anyones bubble at MS, but open source will win - its inevitable. Sorry.
The longer MS waits to go open-source, the worse the inevitable "adjustment" is going to be. It's hard to say what this adjustment will look like, but it will be painful for MS no matter what at this point, but in the long run, it will be a good thing, and I think MS with all of its intellectual capital is in a good position to make a lot of money in this new open-source world if it shifts its resources to the right places.
Whats the right places? I have no idea.
P.S. The trusted computing platform is doomed to fail in the market place. You won't find a single customer in the world who actually wants DRM or trusted software lockdown. So the only way it can be forced into the marketplace is by MS's incumbency and/or legal strong-arming. And if it comes to that, people will be flocking to Linux in droves.
It's a bad move on MS part, and bowing to the pressure of a small economic cartel (hollywood) against the wishes of a much bigger market opposed to it, is just plain stupid economics. Sorry again.