|
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.
fini
Nako
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
I think Microsoft should open up their Windows source code so that we REAL
programmers can fix all their bugs for them..
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. 
|
|
|
|
|
Well, if you're really interested in the M$ source codes, here they are:
/* Source Code to Windows 2000 */
#include "win31.h"
#include "win95.h"
#include "win98.h"
#include "workst~1.h"
#include "evenmore.h"
#include "oldstuff.h"
#include "billrulz.h"
#include "monopoly.h"
#define INSTALL = HARD
char make_prog_look_big[1600000];
void main()
{
while(!CRASHED)
{
display_copyright_message();
display_bill_rules_message();
do_nothing_loop();
if (first_time_installation)
{
make_50_megabyte_swapfile();
do_nothing_loop();
totally_screw_up_HPFS_file_system();
search_and_destroy_the_rest_of_OS/2();
make_futile_attempt_to_damage_Linux();
disable_Netscape();
disable_RealPlayer();
disable_Lotus_Products();
hang_system();
}
write_something(anything);
display_copyright_message();
do_nothing_loop();
do_some_stuff();
if (still_not_crashed)
{
display_copyright_message();
do_nothing_loop();
basically_run_windows_3.1();
do_nothing_loop();
do_nothing_loop();
}
if (system_ok())
crash(to_dos_prompt)
else
system_memory = open("a:\swp0001.swp", O_CREATE);
while(something)
{
sleep(5);
get_user_input();
sleep(5);
act_on_user_input();
sleep(5);
}
create_general_protection_fault();
}
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
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.
Actually this same analogy goes for money too
|
|
|
|
|
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.
Peace, Honor & Respect,
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
There are virtually no undocumented APIs in Win32. All the hype about them a few years ago refered to Win 3.1.
The best anyone's come up with since then is a few entry points where one part of the OS calls another. These are internal calls, and not true APIs.
To be a true illicit undocumentment API, the function must perform some useful task, be undocumented, _and_ be used be a Microsoft application (something beside the OS itself).
I've yet to hear any credible evidence that such an API has been found.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, it should be open source because:
|
|
|
|
|
Lie back on the couch...
...and start from the beginning
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
Reading all of this I can only conclude one thing: you have absolutely no idea what open source or copyleft is about.
I'm not saying that M$ should release their source code. They have to decide that for themselves
|
|
|
|
|
Can't wait for DOJ to make windows open. Oh goody,
instead of having tested my code on Windows NT, Win95, Win95B, Win98, Win2000, WinCE ( 1,2.00, 2.01,...)
I also would have to test it on dozens of other Windows
freeware distributions. I don't think there will be any
independent ISVs in the future smaller than IBM, Rational, Corel, or Microsoft.
Either that, or all software will be released in crappy, overbloated Java.
If you ask me, I would not pay a dime for any Java code. None of them worth that much.
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
|
<g>
I think Open Source has it's pros and cons.
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
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
