| > It would seem that you're conflating open source with free software I'm really not. Windows is closed-source in that the source is not readily available - nothing to do with "Free"ness. Agreed that Java is a good example. > Given that the Windows source code is nowhere near as hard to obtain as you seem to think Perhaps it's easier than I'm aware. To my knowledge, the access routes are all through the Shared Source programmes, and they have specific eligibility requirements: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource. So I expect we're just disagreeing about the extent to which code must be "open" to count as "Open" - I'd posit it being available for public access, but I could be convinced if it were available to all customers. > I would contrast this with Adobe Photoshop as an example of very-Closed, Non-Free software. Fair enough - there are examples of "more closed" software. > You almost certainly have competitors building software on an MS platform and you should not make the mistake of assuming they're doomed from the start. I'm certainly not making the assumption that using closed-source software is always a bad decision. There are obvious benefits to using open source, but it's not always possible, and in many cases doesn't make much difference. But I can't get behind the argument that Windows is "Open Source" in any meaningful sense - even Microsoft describes it as "shared"! |