Windows 10: Why Microsoft is turning into an open-source company

Read more: Why Microsoft is turning into an open-source company | ZDNet

:)

 

If Android is open source, why is there no Android emulator in the Window Store

Android is not a game emulator, it is an operating system. And a free one. Other,
significantly less popular operating systems are store apps, such as as Ubuntu, Suse and the others.

The issue has nothing to do with Windows Store code base whatsoever.

I think the question is plain, and deserves a valid answer.

Since Microsoft Store does not provide (for example) a way for me to buy a train ticket, or use a parking meter, but Android does, the application, solution, and method are all right there. Is it being done deliberately or not. It certainly removes a major
reason to be carrying a Surface around doesn't it.

 

If Android is open source, why is there no Android emulator in the Window Store

Hi,

Windows store is developed by Microsoft Corporation and it's closed sourced software, which means that it's solely developed by the company and protected by copyright. In addition, Microsoft has revised the store policy to remove and discontinue any game
emulators from the Windows store.

For more information, you can check the Windows store policies provided on this

link.

Let us know should you have other concerns.

 

Interesting observations, not original but of course that is hard to get these days. Microsoft is ran by engineers and people with strong engineering backgrounds. That means that a lot of what the "old stuffy" Microsoft wanted to achieve by billing the hell out of companies is now being achieved in a more modern, may I even say a different way. I have dealt with Microsoft as a company for over 20 years, as a customer, as an enthusiast and I know how the company is shifting. I frequent many of their events and I am also frequently reading many of the blogs and community news. I like how the company is shifting into providing services, let's face it, techies are not good at selling stuff. Microsoft recently gave up on Lumia, not sure where they are going with the hardware platform on the Surface lines. Hardware has never been a strong for them, although mice and keyboards were once highly recommended. The new Microsoft still has some of it's old glamour and "stuffiness" but it is slowly moving away. We all can argue that the base code of Microsoft is actually a form of Unix and that the more modern Unix operating systems are more about kernel optimizations and adjustment to the hardware layer for containers and sand boxing. Together with the BI and SQL engines it is now providing a different, better fitting to the future, platform. Don't get me wrong, running their services is still very expensive if you know we spend millions in licensing and services. It is all about allowing integration because without there is only an island and they were on this island until 2014 when things started to shift. Customers, like us, are very sceptical as we do not always understand the why and the how. I run, today, just as easy with Windows 10 as I do with Linux and all of them utilize the services offered by Microsoft. Our developers can easily integrate their code and use object based storage which runs on a specific version of RedHat Linux (EMC ATMOS). I like the "new" Microsoft although I am of the old club that keeps a close eye on my wireshark....

 

I am not techie by any stretch of imagination.

I am interested in this sentence :
"Microsoft now has its own BSD Unix operating system, supports Ubuntu as a subsystem on Windows 10"

Would someone explain to me in layman terms what does that mean ?

 

Hi there

as an Engineer - I know I'd be hopeless at selling - I'd probably fail selling Water to people dying of thirst in the desert -- but Good Salespeople are vital to ANY organisation and it's good to see Ms improving on this front - Salespeople who LIKE what their company is producing and believe in the products they are selling.

Of course Salespeople need a basic understanding of the products but their job especially in large organisations is to get the client / customer interested and then put more technical people together when necessary.

Good move from Ms.

If you look at various very decent rich corporations such as RED HAT, SUSE, CANONICAL etc - they all supply a lot of support for FREE plus copies of their enterprise OS'es as open source as well.

I'm a big fan of CENTOS for example - it's a virtual total clone of REDHAT's Enterprise server Linux - Redhat supply and assist this OS for individual users. RED HAT servers themselves are widely used commercially. Open suse is done by SUSE and UBUNTU largely done by Canonical.

Open source benefits everybody from individuals to large corporations.
Of course for commercial users you need a robust scalable system, continuity and support if things break --that's what they charge for and there's a sensible market for that type of stuff.

Ms going more open source won't diminish the value of the company - it will probably make it MORE valuable. These days the major assets in a company are PEOPLE.

You can't run the entire planet with large companies having zero assets -- UBER (taxi firm with no taxes, AIRBNB hotels etc without a single hotel, Amazon without a single store etc etc !!! - If any of these multi-billion dollar corporations were to go belly up - there's ZERO assets any investors could get back as there aren't any !!!).

BTW @davidhk the remark about UBUNTU on windows was that in the latest versions of the insider release you can run a BASH shell based on the UBUNTU version. This means in theory some Linux executables will run directly on windows - I haven't tried this out yet but will get round to it.


Cheers
jimbo

 

Given that the trend is toward open source it's no shock that MS is heading this way as well and for the better. It might make it easy to port some Linux apps/software to Windows and there's nothing but good with that.

I can't wait to see what occurs.

 

I've been having fun with their bash addon and am looking forward to what they do next.

 

As a user, I'm not sure I care whether the source is open or not. I care about having a finished, working product. That's why I don't like Windows 10 with its constant mandatory updates. One of the systems I actually use is an old laptop running XP. It has not been updated for a very long time, but it works. I don't need any updates there. My main OS is Windows 7. I do run Windows update once every couple of months, get the security patches, but there are lots of updates I reject (like all those related to Windows 10 or some strange updates related to things I've never heard of before, a manat comes to mind). The system itself is stable and it's features are unchanged for a long time. And that's what I want, I don't really want any new features.

Sometimes there is just no comparison between the open source software and commercial products. The example everyone is tired of is the Office. But then there is Acrobat, Mathematica, Photoshop, etc.

Now I've been using bash on Windows for more than a decade (through Cygwin). How's that news?

 

Without updates you don't get bugs patched and new features. It's not like MS or any OS maker can come up with a totally bug free product. With Windows having way in excess of 50 million lines of code it's impossible.

As for bash.. the inclusion of it from MS and not having to use Cywing is a big deal to many.

 

From my point of view, the incorporation Linux and all that story around "Security" has to do with that in EU, a lot Local Administration are deciding to move away from Windows because of the Costs and because of the "Security", which has to do with the "Virus" vulnerabilty of Windows and not the "User Locking" Security. I think MS did miss understood what is going on and just went on making the things more dificult for themselves and for the Users too. With that "intrusion" like "Spyware" on User´s, the "Blocking" the user Activity, will make more easy the people move away from Windows. Not that Linux is something good, maybe technically, but for "normal" users is something not usable, then most of the usage you have to have good knownledge of Internals, Compilers and so on, besides the Documentation, there is a huge, but poor written, to have a quick information about how to do something, you have to look in a mountain of pages over pages of empty "How to". That move of MS, is sure wrong, they did not real understand what is going on, they did the wrong way.

 

Windows to Linux would be more useful.

Most of the free software I have installed was ported from Linux to Windows.

 

Sorry there folks just don't see what this will do for guys like me who spend must of his computer time working on photo editing anymore.

 

Yes,, I totally agree with this. I would love to be able to run more Windows software on Linux.

 

Windows is certainly not bug free, but I'm not sure any of the updates actually fix those bugs. At least, things that I notice never get fixed. Lots of things get "fixed" that I've never experienced. Now, regardless of the bugs, I never had a problem working with a PC that was not updated for a while. Now, working with the open source software very often is problematic. Just my experience.

Bash .. what difference does it make where it comes from? Does the same thing ...