On Thu, 4 May 2000, Jim Driscoll wrote:
> > What interests me, though, is why people keep suggesting that
> > forcing MS
> > to go open source would be the ideal punishment. Since when
> > was releasing
> > your OS source code a punishment? :-)
> >
> > I am surprised too. I never suggest anyone should "go open source",
> > neither as a punishment or for any other reason.
I'd be interested to know why Richard doesn't encourage people to publish
their source code, personally...
> If Windows' source were opened, Microsoft could find itself in a situation
> in which, in some areas at least, they are slower to improve Windows than
> others are. That would be a little scary for Microsoft, and perhaps quite
> good for the competition (hence the relevance) but it would have no real
> effect on Microsoft's ability to maintain a monopoly, so yes, it isn't
> exactly an appropriate action to take.
On the contrary. Look at the issues with the NTFS driver now, for example:
if the Windows [NT] source were available (with the restriction on patent
usage) we could just read the source, and make the Linux driver work
perfectly (well, as well as their version does, anyway :P)
Equally, the Wine project is hampered by the many undocumented API calls
used - while you can have "undocumented" calls in an open source OS,
there's nothing to stop you analysing the source code itself.
Wine, Samba, the Linux kernel - there are plenty of open source projects
which would benefit from this.
> > IMO, the proposed solution (the govt's, not RMS's!) is a
> > pretty good one.
> > It could do with a little refinement, and a few more restrictions in
> > places, but it could be quite effective.
> >
> > Splitting up Microsoft could be effective for stimulating competing
> > proprietary software companies that would work more effectively to
> > crush free software. I don't think that is a desirable result, but
> > perhaps you do. I don't know what else is in the proposed sentence.
The proposed judgement is available online; it does make quite interesting
reading, and I think it's quite well thought out (as indeed it should be).
> Much as I hate to disagree with anyone prophecying doom, if breaking up
> Microsoft - or indeed spawning clones of Windows which would inevitably
> happen if MS had to open the source - means that other closed-source
> software companies would be able to offer more consistent competition, then,
> at least, the software-buying public would have more reason to actually stop
> and take a look at what they're buying rather than blindly buying from a
> familiar company. I would expect free software to fare rather well if the
> market starts considering products on their (technical) merit rather than
> their advertising budget.
Quite. Right now, "competition" amounts to MS vs. everyone else. It's all
too easy to fall into a trap of "standardising" on the moving target of
MS's current bugset. After all, if you're using an MS client platform,
won't you get the best results from MS servers and applications, too?
With a proper market, though, it would be much easier for everyone (except
MS!) to compete; faced with a free choice of a dozen compatible word
processors, spreadsheets, OSs, servers etc., going the open source route
is much easier. Inevitably, the open source equivalent will be cheaper and
better, so in a free market, it will succeed. Certainly, it will be better
off than under the current situation, where the "default" choice is MS,
and you need to go to great lengths to justify "deviating" from the
"usual" arrangement.
Richard will probably object to my references to "open source", rather
than "free software"; I feel the former is more appropriate. The main
problem, I think, is the association between "free software"-FSF-GPL. Many
of the most successful open source products are not GPLed - Apache,
*BSD... I know this doesn't stop them being "free software" - but I do
feel "open source" is more appropriate.
James.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 07 2000 - 21:00:15 EST