For you, linux geeks

In the hypothetical case Microsoft opened Windows' source code, what would you do?

[POLL]
(1) Linux can go to the recycle bin right now. What a question.
(2) I'd consider switching back to Windows.
(3) After going the Linux way, I won't go back.
(4) I hate Microsoft and Windows is a bloated piece of trash.
(5) I'd take a look at alternatives such as SkyOS.
(6) Kernel hacking is for losers
[/POLL]

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Considering that there is no possible way Microsoft would even fathom opening the current Windows tree (Vista), it would have to be one of the older Windows (XP and before...).

From what I've gathered, the XP codebase is so unbeleivably convoluted that a single error could grind developer operations to a complete halt for days (maybe even weeks).

I would rather shoot myself in the testicals with rock salt than touch that kind of mess.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Even if Microsoft released the entire source code, it still wouldn't make it modular. The ability to load and unload modules pleases me greatly.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by pengudeus

Even if Microsoft released the entire source code, it still wouldn't make it modular. The ability to load and unload modules pleases me greatly.

There is a way to unload certain portions of Windows components, however, it can be a little frustrating. nLite basically strips whatever components you specify out of a Windows install disc. The only problem is you need to look up what each component does or else you could end up with a fudged up install that doesn't work or leaves other software incompatible to the OS. There's also a version for Vista that's WIP.

I've been using nLite for about 2 years now with no problems and it's a great way to simplify the (re)install process by adding your drivers and OS tweaks before the OS is even installed.

How ya doing, buddy?

No, not Windows "Components" or integrated programs, Kernel MODULES. A Microkernel design like Linux has a variety of benefits over a Macrokernel, not the least of which is expandability through modules. Things like a lower memory footprint and easier debugging are huge too.

I was speaking idiomatically.

(3) After going the Linux way, I won't go back.

Yes, the Windows experience is good for the average computer user, but the freedom and power from Linux that I never had from Windows. That, above all else, is why I won't go back any time soon.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Not a Linux geek, but... Linux can go right to the recycle bin. Tried it, hated it. Nothing worked. Besides, I have a ton of mission critical programs that have no acceptable Linux equivalents, and probably never will.

I really wish it was better than it is, because I'd rather use it than Windows. But oh well.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Arainach

A Microkernel design like Linux has a variety of benefits over a Macrokernel, not the least of which is expandability through modules.

Linux is a Monolithic kernel, not a Microkernel. Linux kernel is modular, yet modules run in kernel mode (ring 0); if one fails the system crashes.
A microkernel, instead, runs services in user mode (ring 3) so if a module fails, only that module goes off; the rest of the system isn't affected. However, microkernels are slower due to continuous (user mode <-> kernel mode) switching.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Personally, I don't see how releasing the source code will have anything to do with someone's choice of operating system. But I suppose there are those that will refuse to use anything outside of OSI-approved software, but that I am not.

Anyway, I'd probably go with three. There's really no reason for me to use Windows these days outside of a few random odd multiplayer games that my friends tells me to install to game with them since everything I need is also available on Linux (such as Firefox, Eclipse, Azureus, and XChat).

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Releasing source would encourage me to use more MS programs, without the source opened I don't really know what the application does besides the stuff it 'appears' to be doing.

Example: Personally I wouldn't use ANY closed-source encryption software. I use TrueCrypt on both windows and linux, because the source is open.
If the source was closed noone could know if the vendors implementation of the encrytion algo was correct (or maybe he did a small mistake making it possible to decrypt the data easily). You don't even know if the used algorithm is a strong crypto - maybe the guy that wrote the application thought something out at the weekend, thinking it was a safe procedure BUT in fact it is not.

Software that phones home is another story...

Most amazing jew boots

(3) After going the Linux way, I won't go back...

... because Linux (and the Unix architecture behind) is by far better that Windows. However, I'd be happy to have the open Windows being reinserted in Wine or anything to get Win-specific hardware/software working under other OSes.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

It's option (3) for me, though I will keep an eye on ReactOS.

How ya doing, buddy?