Is there ANY reason for Windows to not go opensource?

Is there ANY reason for Windows to not go opensource?

Money?

Preinstalls, official support, cloud services, Office - all of that remains.
CentOS did not kill Red Hat.

Explain why they should without using any buzzwords like "freedom" or "botnet".

We want it to continue to not be shit.

Why would they release their source code? It's an absolute mess.

Nothing, they call charge for the licences. But that will make a way for open forks, and that were the problem lies.

Sure it is, kiddo.

Well, main distribution will still be maintained and coded by the same Pajeets you know and love, so no worries there.

>But that will make a way for open forks
It's probably possible to release code under the license that prevents forking. While this is not very desirable it's still a big step in a positive direction.
I don't think that those forks can make a powerful dent in their revenue stream anyway, but that's just a baseless speculation of an extremely hypothetical scenario.

There have been reports that their code is pretty messy and complex. If true, getting that exposed would be bad for their image.

Going open source would also mean any audit would be able to find all the ways MS uses telemetry and possible backdoor implementations. The former would be embarrassing, the latter could be potentially disastrous.

The NT kernel source base is being prepped for open-sourcing soon.

Most stuff above the kernel layer (especially the graphical shell) won't be though.

And what happens with ReactOS. Was build from scratch? It's useful, like to install office.

>There have been reports that their code is pretty messy and complex.
Isn't there a copypasta sourced from Kolivas now? :^)

I love when people talk about this shit. The linux kernel is complicated enough and people still find bugs that existed for 10 fucking years. You act like people would magically discover all of the nsa backdoors you tools fucking say are in it.

The best part is, you would just wait for someone else to tell you what you wanted to hear. If someone combed through the code and said the telemetry was actually just like they said and there were no backdoors, you would just say its a lie.

Everyone will finally get to look at the code and realize what a fucking mess it is, and it will hurt Microsoft's reputation tremendously

They could just do what Google do with Chrome. Have the source code free (under BSD or whatever) call that Windows Open Source or whatever. And then distribute Window's ISOs with all the botnet shit in.

So some neckbeard can add in his pedo anime shit into the OS? Nah

>finding bugs is the same thing as recognizing the intended function of code

:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^)

Opensourcing leads to the code becoming shit lol.

There is not an example of software becoming opensource, heck, any open source software, being good. Yet there are so many examples of software wisely taking the path of monetization and improvement.

They would have to compete with others said things, because nearly anyone could offer 'official' support.

*over said things

millions of dollars and countless months of legal hell for no tangible gain other than stroking off a bunch of irrelevant "activists" nobody gives a shit about that have no idea how the commercial software industry works anyway and thinks everyone can just be like red hat

they don't need a bunch of amateurs and code monkeys up in their shit auditing everything either when large companies and government institutions already do it and pay heftily for the privilege

Can we get a Windows distribution based on OpenNT or whatever they call it's that's just barebones Windows with DX12 support

No store, no fancy auto updates, no fancy anything. Just NT, a GUI, and dependencies for basic shit.

OpenNT was the project to compile the leaked NT4 source

give and example of good closed source software

So we can fork it to remove unwanted features or provide security patches.

It actually is. Multiple MS engineers have posted, with proof, of how utterly insane the current codebase is. And given how gigantic windows is with all of its built in programs and the fact that they've built up on the same exact codebase for nearly 20 years now, it's not hard to believe.

they could not troll their customers if they did.

the Windows 1.0 logo there looks very modern

Make vista open source. Its close enough to 7 to replace it

Don't open 7 up to being open source YET unless you want mass spikes in exploit abuse

I'd say open XP and Vista first, move forward as time goes on. Once support is over for a version source should be available.

It would expose the mess that windows is.

/thread

>forking
This is why Linux can't get marketshare, retards making random shit forks because they can and breaking compatibility between forks, it's an utter mess.

>Once support is over for a version source should be available.
What would be the point of making obsolete OSs open source?

The best thing Microsoft could do is open up Windows 10 to create a improved, modern OS.

>This is why Linux can't get marketshare
Linux can't get marketshare because it's a non-usefriendly mess.

It works and is solid enough.

I've had the same Win install for like 4 years (7->8->8.1->10) and despite all the updates and all the tweaks I make to the system (being a power user and all) it has never broken on me.

Linux installs break if you look at them wrong.

>implying they didn't reuse massive portions of it in win 10
most of ms engineering now boils down to fucking up the ui and making sure corporate clients are satisfied.