Let me see
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tracyanne Oct 15, 2008 5:49 AM EDT |
Umm... no can't think of anything because I don't want windows, any version. |
| rijelkentaurus Oct 15, 2008 8:19 AM EDT |
Heh...GPLv3 code throughout? |
| r_a_trip Oct 15, 2008 9:18 AM EDT |
I can think of a few things... Higher resource demands. More DRM. More WGA and validation. Another confusing UI redesign. A new driver model. Increased dependency on (subscription) Live/Cloud services. Forced use of the Ribbon UI in Windows and third party apps. Futher commingling of seperate parts. Several new EULA's with stricter stipulations. More distinct versions (Windows 7 Starter / Basic / Home / UMPC / SMB / Professional / Premium / Enterprise / Server / DataCenter / VirtualServer / HPC / Headless / Embedded / Surface / Tablet / POS). More promised but scrapped features. New startup Video (Dance Monkeyboy). New UAC with more popups. Larger Sidepane with live advertising. Then again, I don't want Windows either. |
| r_a_trip Oct 15, 2008 9:57 AM EDT |
GPLv3 source code would be nice, but this is Microsoft (cold day in Hell) and they are shipping binaries with Windows to which they don't even have the source anymore (Comes vs Microsoft). |
| herzeleid Oct 15, 2008 1:42 PM EDT |
@ r_a_tripp Agree wholeheartedly with your list. |
| Steven_Rosenber Oct 15, 2008 2:12 PM EDT |
I'd love to see Microsoft build a new OS from the ground up with no Windows legacy code gumming the damn thing up. Apple did it, and MS should too. |
| bigg Oct 15, 2008 2:26 PM EDT |
> Apple did it I thought they started with one of the BSD's. |
| Steven_Rosenber Oct 15, 2008 2:54 PM EDT |
Apple used some FreeBSD (and probably NetBSD) code, but they didn't start with a lot of "Classic" Mac OS code, even though some of that probably did make it into OS X. MS could do that, too, or use their Singularity or Midori projects as the base for a post-Windows OS. |
| techiem2 Oct 15, 2008 3:08 PM EDT |
Yaknow, I had an interesting thought.
As there is always the "wouldn't if be cool if MS GPL'd windows" theories around, I was wondering: Just how much of MS's source code do they actually have full rights to? How much is licensed from others? How much is stolen from others? How much is blatantly infringing patents? |
| tuxchick Oct 15, 2008 3:16 PM EDT |
techiem2, and why can't they steal good code, and if they are, WTF have they done to it? |
| techiem2 Oct 15, 2008 3:31 PM EDT |
They "Microsoftized" it. Just like the code they actually buy... |
| bigg Oct 15, 2008 3:53 PM EDT |
I've asked this before. What value would a GPL version of Windows be to the FOSS community? Very little, beyond the ability to make a few drivers work better in Linux and to improve Wine, and possibly a few fonts for some users. |
| tuxchick Oct 15, 2008 3:59 PM EDT |
bigg, don't forget the entertainment value of seeing all that spaghetti exposed to the open air, writhing in embarrassment, and trying to get away from all those FOSS geeks laughing and pointing. Poor little codes, it might be too cruel to do that. It's not their fault. |
| bigg Oct 15, 2008 4:13 PM EDT |
Good point, a lot of educational value there. Computer science instructors will have to create new courses to cover even 10% of the case studies in what not to do. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 15, 2008 6:28 PM EDT |
Quoting:I've asked this before. What value would a GPL version of Windows be to the FOSS community? There are a couple other ones, besides drivers and Wine: Much better support for MS protocols. Think of what Samba could do with it. Much better support for MS-Office formats (wordpad can read/write those, and that's part of Windows). Support for DRMed media in GStreamer and Xine (just decrypting of course, not enforcing the DRM :-) There could be some indirect benefits as well. For example, people would be able to improve on Microsoft's god-aweful OpenGL support (It's still stuck at OpenGL 1.2 for crying out loud!). That way OpenGL would become more interesting on Windows again. Result: cross-platform game development becomes much easier. |
| tracyanne Oct 15, 2008 9:25 PM EDT |
But then DirectX would be no problem either |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 16, 2008 4:21 AM EDT |
tracyanne: In theory, not. But I don't think it would be possible to port DirectX to Linux. It's far too ingrained on Windows. It's all low-level COM-style APIs and quite difficult to work with (I used to do game programming with DirectX). I think any possible benefit on GPL DirectX will be confined to Wine and emulators. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!