Okay, so maybe I'm not the first to have Windoze crash on me. Maybe I'm also not the first one to have that wishes that Microsoft would just get it right the first time, and NOT keep releasing updates every 2-3 months. And maybe I'm also not the first one who wants to be able to develop the way Windoze feels when I'm using it, and I mean BEYOND the standard features, peeps.
In order for Microsoft to be able to even survive against Linux, no matter the flavor, Microsoft needs to make the flavors of Windoze 'tweakable', via source-code-availability.
I know, I know. All you schmucks out there think it would only hurt your precious Windoze by giving it more flavors and making the source code publicly available, right? So Bill and Microsoft pull in a 9 figure a day income. Have you ever looked at all the jokes about Windozw? Microsoft? Theres a reason for those jokes. Microsoft just released Windoze 2000 on February 17th of 2000, and they ALREADY have bugs and a patch for known problems.
So I say this. If Microsoft can't do it right the first time, let us in the programming community try to.
Open source will lead windows down the path of UNIX. Many flavors all just a little different,
all supposedly better. I have enough trouble keeping up with the stadnard API to worry about
company A or B variation
If there are so many real programmers and they can fix all the bugs, then how come they don't develop their own operating systems, huh. Thank you very much. What is wrong with you people? What would you do if Microsoft just discontinued Windows and offered no tech support. There is no Internet Explorer for Linux, so more than half the web pages would be inaccessible (due to IE extensions being used). Half the businesses in the world would be in jeopardy because all the good software runs on Windows. Think about it, then use your head and reanswer this question 'kay? Thank you very much.
There is something wrong with your code. If it was actual MFC code, all methods should be macros. Your program is actually one huge source file with little or no object orientation.
My feelings after 3 years of MFC experience and lately 2 years of Java experience is that the Windows platform could really benefit from a whole new programming language, preferably something like Java. I think it is sad that MFC doesnt seem to have any of the features you find in most of MS own programs these days. You actually have to buy third party systems to get a decent MDI framework. The whole business of macros to generate an huge switch case block for events seems like something out of the mid 1980's. Why didn't they use C++ for real object orientation and not some idiotic layer on top of Win32. I mean how hard would it to learn some design patterns and apply them to create a good component model.
Of course I am biased from working with Java that really is a nice programming language compared to C++ and MFC. Sadly Java i still lagging behind in performance and general memory impact. If only the standardised class library was natively compiled and available like shared dll's (like all typical MS applications). Oh well, it's still in its early years, and I expect these to be overcome some time soon.
Lets hope the new language nicknamed "Cool" is as good as the hype is made up to be. Anyone know anything about this
J'm a french developper with a poor English (sorry for that - hope that you understand my opinion).
Why Microsoft doesn't use the standard commun control in theirs developpements (ex : Toolbars, menus...). Why the MFC do not include somme micosoft products features (floating menus...) ? Microsoft said that Word / Excel and so on are written with visual C++. But, in Visual C++ you do not have all the tricks and tips used by microsoft...
So i don't think that all the source code of Windows is intersting but they should give us some portion used into their apps. If we want a standard interface, we all sould use the same GUI features...
Computer programmer's are the only profession that would even ask the question, "Is what we do worth being paid for?" What a joke. As a group are we really that insecure?
I can understand the press getting on this band wagon (open source), they, like most media types, live in a liberal "never-never-land." If I may paraphrase an old saying, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, write about it."
So why do people support not getting paid for what they do? I think the answer is that most of the open source movement comes from college students -- just write home when you need money. After all, what is the largest bastion of liberalism other than our universities? Austin, Texas is a college town (UT) that is often described as "100 square miles surrounded by reality."
Now that Linus Torvalds has gone on to get a job at Transmeta, I suspect he cashes his paycheck like the rest of us. Do you suppose that Transmeta is going to give away their new chip? Maybe they will publish the design on the internet? If you believe that -- grow up and get a job.
I don't like to hear people whine about "make it open source" either. Sounds like Marketeers and salesman trying to dupe the naive programmers out of their share. But on the other hand, source code is like sh@t, if you spread it around like fertilizer - it makes things grow. If you keep it only to yourself - you stink.
Are we really happy standing in the shadow of microsoft? It seems as if everyone runs to the store as soon as microsoft releases a new program (including O/S's), Microsoft has become stale. Something fresh would be nice...
Microsoft's programming team is pretty slick i guess, but imagine the version(s) of "windows" that would come from teams comprising millions of the most innovative programmers from all over the world?
The version of "windows" that would result from millions of the most innovative programmers from all over the world can be seen right now. Millions of people are simply copying the concepts that have grown in the market. Hardly anything new or innovative. Those people make a lot of noise, present themselves as heroic knights, but in fact they are dumping a "product" on the market in the same way as the Japanese dumped their DRAM chips a decade ago (which we did not particularly like).
Open-source is a kind of communist model. As pointed out by Bill, those millions of programmers can only live because of their moms and dads and because of us tax payers. Indeed, what a joke, the US government trying to transform our profession into a hobby. As professionals, let us fight this nonsense and let those millions find a paid job and go solve customer problems
Well, there have been excellent comments here. Ultimately, I believe (and certainly hope) that NO programmer(s) or company is ever FORCED to release its source code. This is a nation founded on the principles of freedom, privacy and security. If Microsoft wishes to release its source code, then that is their choice. Whether or not they release their source (I don't really see why they would), I support them. Other than the above, my hope is that they don't release their OS source; or, if they do, they release early versions like 3.1. Maybe a good way for them to do it (if they so desired) is to release 3 or 4 versions back, that way they, hopefully, wouldn't lose any of the current market with cheap take-offs of the new OS.
At least I think they should open the API's they use. How many API's are there that are
considered 'hidden', that they don't release the specs for? I think Open Sourcing Windows
would be akin to suicide for MS, since they are, in fact, a commercial enterprise. I don't
think any judge in the USA is going to make them open source it
What about all the undocumented APIs in shell32.dll?
Amongst others there are functions that make creating a shell namespace extension vastly more simple.
Whether shell32.dll is part of Win32 is debatable though!
If an API is not documented it's normally because the spec is incomplete and subject to change. Also, sometimes there's no time for an optimal implementation of certain feature, so a working implementation is chosen to meet the deadline, leaving space for a reimplementation later on.
Would you want to document a spec that is likely to be trashed and then be hooked to a less the optimal implementation you can't change because you'll break thousands of apps if you do?
What sensible approach would you take
Linux started out as a NON COMMERCIAL operating system, while Window is not. Window OS is the HARDWORK and trademark of Microsoft, no body could deny that. Forcing Window to open source is simply Microsoft competitor's business strategy in order to slow down, and best if can destroy Window OS market.
Do you want other to copy your HARDWORK and post it to CodeProject and say that it is not YOURS?
Or do you enjoy people learn some key features from you, make a little change and say: This is MINE and nothing to do with YOU?
Why not IBM, ORACLE and SUN open their source too? Simply because their product does not sale as good as Window? What a looser
By opening the source there is effectively over a million debuggers working on the code. One would hope that this would result in faster, more stable code. It would also allow third parties to develop applications and drivers in a more informed manner, since they know what is going on inside the OS.
On the other hand, coordination of such a large body of code would be a nightmare, and what profit motivated company would want to do it? Would third party vendors be as willing to work with an open source scheme? Would Microsoft itself invest less time in the development of the OS, since (a) they may feel eveeryone else can now do the work for them, and (b) they would be unwilling to use proprietry techniques within the code, meaning we get the OS they are willing to show us, not the best OS that they can produce
To echo Chris's comments above, consider the Mozilla project: It is apparent how much of a commitment from the vendor (Netscape there, or MS for windows) it takes to bring a closed-source project into the open-source world. If MS was not willing to make a commitment to sharing not just the source of Windows, but design specs, building, testing, and change-management tools, etc., then releasing Windows source could be destructive:
Lots of developer hours would be wasted reading incomprehensible windows source rather than writing apps.
We would quickly return to the bad old DOS days where everyone's apps used undocumented unsupported APIs and consequently interfered with one another and broke with each new release of the OS.
Similar to above, with a proliferation of patches, and in the absence of a strong central coordinating authority, apps would start relying on new features in non-standard patched kernels making standardized distributions a nightmare.
Microsoft puts an awful lot of time and effort into documenting their APIs. I have not seen this quality of documentation in any open-source product. Period. I can get a lot more done with MSDN and PSDK telling me how things work than I could if I had to read the source to figure things out. Programmers are often not great at documenting their work and I know of no open-source project that features great technical writing in its documentation. If Windows were to go open-source, I would fear most that we would lose the commitment to maintaining Microsoft's standard of excellence in documentation.
All of these fears can be addressed, but could only be addressed realistically if MS were committed to supporting open-source development of Windows. Without such a commitment, even if Judge Jackson ordered MS to release the Windows source, there would be little benefit for developers
I agree with Chris and Johnathan's points. However I am even more polar on this point. I absolutely do NOT want to see open source Windows. In my opinion, that would be a perfect example of the goverment screwing up something it does not understand.
I like open source but I do not consider it the panacea that others seem to. For all the hype of Mozilla, when is it actually going to be _done_? Everyone keeps rhapshodizing about how great it is, and yet months keep going by without a finished product.
Since Netscape has gone open source, MS has released IE5.0 then IE 5.01. If IE6 doesn't beat Mozilla to the market, it will follow soon after. And if past performance is an indicator, it will lap Mozilla in terms of both quality and standards conformance.
The strong central authority that MS exercises over their "standards" is in my mind the very source of their quality. The Microsoft Development platform (specifically the MSDN program) is simply superb, second to none. There's nothing like it anywhere else. You'll never get such coherence from a committee, or a group of companies much less an open source OS. Look at how Linux is already starting to fragment as the various vendors try to make a buck off of it.
While I like the fact that open source exists, I sincerely hope we never see open source Windows.
I think Open Source was quite a great idea 10 years ago.
In the mean time you have much more powerful and efficient tools to extend an application. Just think of COM and Corba.
Why should I spend my time browsing code formatted in a non familiar way for an entry-point to insert my functionality ?
Moreover, usually an entry-point consists of several places scattered along kilobytes of source code and the code is also the only documentation you have.
And if one claims that he wants to see how good programs are written, I think he will find a lot of free and well written documentation and examples on MSDN or CodeProject or CodeGuru
We NEED Open Source! What we DON'T need, are the extremes.
We need Open Source for the several reasons why the Justice Department got involved in the first place: Power concentrated in one place is dangerous, primarily because it caters only to the needs of those holding the power (and we all know what power does to people). Besides, we also know that those holding power, become very reluctant to relinguishing it (once they have it), and that's where corruptions (however innocent looking it may appear at first) begin to replace virtues (like 'common good') with 'self interest'. Inherently, it places restriction on creative freedom, meaning, anything resembling growth alien to the views of the dictator, are supressed. But "anything" cannot be assimilated into the mainstream, because "anything" also include the extremes which would also be dangerous. That's where the NEED for "controlled openess" in the form of qualified committees must be introduced.
Computer languages and other disciplines are placed in the care of committees. Isn't the ISO and ANSI, organizations made up of committees? I don't see bedlam occurring from their activities
Whilst the documentation in MSDN is very good, some of the samples leave a lot to be desired. Take the example of how to write an exchange message store. It is written in C, but tries to emulate C++ and is virtually impossible to understand as a result. How many people have tried to use samples like this, and spent time rejigging them until they have a sensible design that works?
A set of examples written in a language most appropriate to the solution would IMHO be more useful than making Windows open source
I fully agree with Chris that free software has it's advantages. What I would like MS to do is develop a linuxconfig like software that can allow you to modify every single aspect of the OS the kernel and what not and then recompile the kernel for smaller and optimized kernel instaed of the unnecessay SCSI and USB drivers (in my case). If MS develops such a software that allows it to modify the core of the OS then that alone will silence many critics as I sincerely doubt that many people will modify the linux kernel code directly. I have been with Linux since slackware and all i find people who speak of adv of opensource is use linuxconfig.
Also a SUN kinda opensource where the s/w owner can modify the code for his own purposes can be permitted if deemed necessay.
Last Visit: 31-Dec-99 18:00 Last Update: 22-Oct-17 8:56