Windows Open Source Code

[sheronne]

If Microsoft Windows was to become open source code, who would actually trust the soft3ware for a business environment? My second question is to programmers who have profitted from selling a program they have created: Would you please send me the source code so I can modify it and call it my own.

 

[gwinn7]

To answer your question, yes. Why? Checks and balances...

If programming was in the hands of only a few people, I would have a concern about trusting what was produced by them. Aren't we already in that situation with Microsoft? Can we truly trust MS products as they are now? There have already been controversial privacy concerns related to them.

What helps to keep MS in check about these issues are the "watch-dog" individuals (groups?) out there that catch these security concerns that a few programmers would like to throw under the average user's (IT Department's) nose. And what happens when these people discover them? The press is notified and then, everyone knows and the attorneys are paid.

With thousands and thousands of programmers out there and a large number of programmers associated or familiar with the development of Open Source software. It would make sense to me that if it was discovered that some developers produced software that threatened the security of a company or a group of users, that it would eventually (or quickly) be discovered. The result would be a wide spread announcement defining what these programmers did to make a particular software product a threat.

I honestly can't answer your second question as I do not know anyone developing, or has developed, open source software for a profit at the moment. On that note, I can only say that programmers should get paid well for their labor. All serious IT people and programmers that create and support the software work long hard hours to provide a quality product and should be paid VERY well for there hard earned skills.

Gary
gwinn7
A+, Network+

 

[venkman]

All serious IT people and programmers that create and support the software work long hard hours to provide a quality product and should be paid VERY well for there hard earned skills.

I'm sure I'll get no stars for this comment, but I'm not sure if I agree with this mentality. I agree that you should get paid well for your work, but payment comes in many different forms: money, job satisfaction, respect, etc. . I love programming. I would like to get paid with lots of money, but honestly, I would do it even if I wasn't. Why? because I get certain amount of payment just by enjoying my work.

And of course I completely agree with everything else you said, Gary.

As I mentioned in another thread, I would like to see pharmaceutical type patent legislation be applied to software. After 5 or so years, software companies should be forced to reveal it's source code, just as pharmaceutical company's reveal their formulas after some years (I think it's 10, right?).

-Venkman

 

[MDXer]

If software was forced into a pharmaceutical type patent model then we would be back to the point where only the wealthy could afford the software being produced. There is a reason that Named brand drugs have such a high cost and insurance companies force the use of generics (which a formula wise identical), The reason is to recoup development costs. If you look at the life cycle of software the patent period would have to be monnths not years to have any affect. Who is currently using 7 year old copies of Office? or even 3 year old copies? yes more people are using office 2000 but when you consider that another version of office is to be released in what the next 12 months?

office proffesional currently lists at $499. How much would that price go up if MS knew that in say 18 months that had to reveal the code to their competitors? Would it go to $600 or $1000 +. Yes you could sit around and wait until the Generic versions came along and get it for $200 after all your not going to die if you don't have a newer version of Office, but this to will drive the price of the software up.

The best piece of software on the market is the one that does what you need it to, when you need it at the lowest cost both financially and in resources.



"Shoot Me! Shoot Me NOW!!!"
- Daffy Duck

 

[venkman]

I couldn't agree more with your argument about software lifecycles, which is why changing the law to my suggestion should have no affect on the market, right? Why not change it and find out then? If no one is using Windows NT 4.0 and office 97, then Microsoft has nothing to fear, right? And if they have nothing to fear then we as consumers have nothing to fear as far as price increases go, right?

-Venkman

 

[jrbarnett]

Venkman,

I agree with your suggestion that source code should be made available if the software isn't being used, but how far does this have to go?
Does it mean that nobody on the entire planet must use it. If this is the case, publishing the source code would be pointless because there is no use for it, other than to let others know "oh so that's how this feature works".

Looking around these forums, there are a number of questions raised about Access 97 on a fairly frequent basis, so I don't think that this could be called unused yet, even though it is now 2 versions behind the current.

I still know of 386 machines in frequent use running Windows 3.1 and DOS (with Office 4.3), so if we were being 100% strict about this, then they couldn't be published yet.

Who is to say that somewhere there is an original IBM PC with DOS 1.0 being used to run some ageing application, still essential to the company's business. What then?

John

 

[venkman]

John,

I think you misunderstood my point... or more likely I misexpressed it. I was trying to say that MDXer contradicted himself, by saying old software wasn't worth anything, yet allowing its source code to be released would affect prices of new software.

My feeling is that prices would not increase. Companies sell software at whatever amount makes them the most money. If the market would bare a higher price, then Microsoft would sell Office at that. Whether their source code is going to be released in 3-5 years, would have no affect on that.

There is no doubt that the companies would lose revenue on this. Not just on people who got the free generic, but those wait an extra 6 months or a year to get generic when they would've bought the software earlier. That's the whole point though. They shouldn't be making all this money.

The current system lends itself to monopolistic practices. The reason Microsoft is successful is not because windows XP was so good, but because everyone was alrady using windows 95. If the source code to win95 was released it would mean a big boost to projects like wine, which could then compete with Microsoft on fair terms.

-Venkman