in Search
Welcome to Neopoleon - Sign in | Join | Help
Navigation: Home | Forums | Galleries

Opening Windows to Customization

[Wow – This has been named the “worst idea ever” – Hint taken, people :) Anyway, this is exactly the kind of feedback I wanted, as I personally also felt at the time that I might have been smoking the crack. Anyway, it was fun to think about.]

In my last post, I asked if you would find access to the Windows source to be at all helpful.

I wanted to know because I really didn’t see how it would be a useful thing to have for most people. It’s big, complicated, and would probably be much more difficult to sift through than to just solve your current tech problems in place.

But, there are other reasons to let the source out.

I’m nearly positive that I’m not the first, second, third, or even the five billionth person to have come up with this idea, but…

…why not release the source code to third parties for customization, branding, and shrink-wrapping?

I like the idea of there being many different flavors of Windows on the market.

I’m not talking about a world that’s loosey-goosey and without rules like the Linux world where just any old John can put together a distro to his liking, but something more structured and useful to the consumer. Some good things have come out of the distribution system, but it’s my opinion that the wide array of Linux distro choices has caused the platform more harm than it has helped it, although I don’t intend to talk about that much in this post.

But think about it. Releasing the source to certain organizations which agree to build their own customized versions of Windows that serve different market niches while conforming to standards of quality:

– An NSA branded Windows (yes – I got this idea from the NSA Linux distro) – This could be a locked-down, super-tight version of the OS

– A version put together by a consortium of gaming companies that’s highly optimized for gaming

– A version that’s targeted at poor nations which are running out of choices when it comes to Windows vs. the Other White Meat (and, no – I don’t accept the version we’ve been talking about which would limit users to, among other things, running only three applications at a time – poor people deserve “real” Windows, too)

– A version that runs on PPC hardware

– And so on…

“Windows Technology” could be licensed to these companies. And, sure, we might lose some dough by licensing Windows, but we might be able to make up for it by either putting the burden of supporting the product on those companies, or by also offering Microsoft support to those companies as a service.

Licensing deals could be worked out based on many factors including the number of expected deployments and the cost of the customized distribution.

In the case of a “gaming” version, we might even see increased sales as efforts to tweak the system result in frequent releases. The “NSA” version might be updated as security threats increase.

All the while, Microsoft would continue to sell its own base versions of Windows.

Now, I admit that I don’t know much about the economics of doing this, or the business sense, but… Am I smoking the crack again?

Keep in mind that I’ve been coming down from the meds and medicating further for the anxiety attacks that have been popping up on a daily basis as a result. My opinion, my friends, could be a little nuts right now :)

Published Monday, May 09, 2005 3:10 AM by Rory

Filed Under: ,

Comments

 

Nic Wise said:

Do I NEED it? No. Would a full-text-searchable version be useful? Hell YES. As for other "distro's" - no, thanks. If I want 1000001 subtly different OS's, I'll get Linux. And thats not going to happen any time soon.
May 9, 2005 4:03 AM
 

TristanK said:

Sorry, you're smoking The Crack again.

I don't want to reinstall or reboot my OS just so I can do something different with it.

"Oh, I didn't quad-boot into the Game OS this time, now I'm going to have to reboot again".

Sounds like the OS version of DLL Hell, to me :)
May 9, 2005 5:56 AM
 

Ian said:

Yeah, I think I'm with TristanK on this one.
However, this is a *little* like the VS.NET model. There is an empty version of the IDE (I forget now what it's called and I can't be bother to go look it up) that 3rd parties can ship with their products inside of. I suspect it's called partner edition or some such.

So for example our compiler ships with VS.NET as it's IDE. you don't get C# or VB.NET or anything else, just our stuff and Visual Studio. Other products then bolt into that, or it merges with a standard install (that maybe contains C#) to become one product.

But thats a lot easier than trying to manage multiple OS's.
Who handles support? upgrades, bug fixes, licensing, the list goes on.
It'd just be too scary and damn hard to manage,and I don't want to have to boot into a new OS just so I can play a game at decent speed, or run a decent art package.

Nightmare me thinks
May 9, 2005 6:59 AM
 

Kevin Daly said:

It depends on the nature and extent of customisation - choosing from a set of features to install, or adding additional ones is one thing (and one way or another we can do this as much as we need to, except for those crybabies who think they're spiritually damaged by having Windows Media Player or IE installed on their machines).

On the other hand, if you let third parties *change* elements of Windows, how is the resulting custom configuration going to be supported?
And exactly what assumptions will software developers be able to make about features of Windows and their characteristics? Do you let people screw with the APIs?
It might be useful for some companies to have customised builds for internal use, but those builds would surely be orphaned to all intents and purposes.
May 9, 2005 8:03 AM
 

John said:

Hey Rory,

This idea of yours, it's, um... how can I say this..? Er.. it's a bad idea. OK? :)

Vendors can already integrate with the windows OS to the extent they need through well defined and supported interfaces. The OS itself can be viewed as a component, and that component is already licensed under a myriad of effective schemes.

Don't stress yourself out.
May 9, 2005 10:32 AM
 

Matt said:

Worst ... Idea ... Ever.

Kind of like letting the plans of the white house, including secure bunker and all, available to other constructors of secure buildings so they can specialize it?

Not saying availability of the windows source code would help expose more vulnerabilities (ok, it will) ... but aside from the security aspect ... could you imagine hardware vendors saying "We only support 'Windows-Gaming' and 'Windows-HomePr0nSurfing' . ..

Ugh.
May 9, 2005 12:59 PM
 

Chris Lundie said:

If you release a special gaming version of Windows, you imply that "regular" Windows is no good for games. Likewise, a "security enhanced" version of Windows implies that that the regular version is insecure.

It's bad enough that we have to choose between Home, Professional, Tablet and Media Center. Home Edition may actually work just fine, but you feel like a weenie for not using "Professional"!
May 9, 2005 3:51 PM
 

Steve Hall said:

Allowing for "usermods" (what we Systems Programmers used to call them in the mainframe...er, MVS and VM world) would only give rise to the same exact problems that IBM had 25-30 years ago. Back then, IBM used to ship to every customer (that would pay a small fee, a few hundred $$/month), the source code for MVS and VM along with the monthly patch tape...in the form of microfiche cards. In my office, I had no less than half-dozen major releases of both MVS and VM source code going back over 10-15 years.

The original intent by IBM was that it was to help Systems Programmers in debugging system crashes. This was a large majority of use of said source code: being able to patch system load modules to provide traps and traces for problems that led to system crashes ($1M/minute outages) of a $15M mainframe.

Of course, when we weren't debugging system problems, all good Systems Programmers just COULDN'T RESIST modifying their OS's. Thus, it became almost IMPOSSIBLE for IBM to kill off the early releases of the early version of OS/360 (known as OS/MFT and OS/MVT) due to hundreds of usermods. (Most shops had several dozen usermods...) Even after users had migrated from that early real-storage only version (MFT or MVT) to the virtual-storage versions (OS/VS1 and OS/VS2, aka SVS and MVS respectively), the usermods were getting out of control...both in number and quality. This was due to them being passed around by a bad rotting ham a week after Easter between members of the SHARE user group (to which all IBM mainframe customers belonged). ((And yes, it was called "shareware" back in 1970...))

For example, at my university data center, which used OS/VS1 (SVS), we replaced over half of the SVCs (Supervisor Calls; equivalent to HAL kernel functions), as well as implemented our own security system, system accounting, and time-sharing system. IBM eventually refused to support even the worst of problems we had with their code...and our Marketing SE would usually just snicker "Well, why don't you just fix it and give me the source code changes so that I can reverse release the fix back to the development group?!?!?!" (We would proudly boast that our copy of VS1 was the most modified copy in the world, which was unfortunately true!)

That shop wasn't the only one that was heavily modifying SVS or MVS. There were hundreds of data centers that were implementing what became to be considered "standard" usermods. IBM has been wrestling with these usermods support issues now since 1970.

The only way in which they've gotten back a lot of control over the problem was by discontinuing the practice of giving away the source-code. Starting in 1983, all new subsystems in MVS became "OCO" (object-code-only). This was due primarily to prevent certain companies (read: Japanese copycats) from pirating their own copy of the source code, recompiling MVS, and propagating a modified copy of MVS amongst their hundreds of plug-compatible mainframes at customer data centers.....but it was also to stop the hundreds of legitimate customers from porting their usermods from release to release. (What was happening in Japan at the time, was that IBM was receiving a lot of phone calls from non-customers about problems with MVS, even though there weren't paying for an MVS license... HHuuummmm, does this sound similar to the problems Microsoft is now having in third-world problems with pirating?)

"Taking back the source code" has been a largely successful program for IBM. It has resulted in most MVS and VM customers eliminating most, if not all, usermods. The most direct result are shops that have rock-solid 6-sigma reliability and availability up-time stats for the mainframes in the past 15 years. (A lot of data-centers running MVS or VM machines can stay up for literally years between reboots due to this stability.)

If Microsoft were to publish Windows source code in a willy-nilly fashion, they will follow IBM down this long and dark path...and along the way manage to P.O. all their customers in useless finger-pointing wars over malfunctioning usermods.
May 9, 2005 6:04 PM
 

Chris Tavares said:

Consider all the flack Microsoft is getting right now about VS.NET 2005 "Architect" vs. "Developer" vs. "Tester" editions. Now multiply it by the number of people that just use the OS.

As a developer, I think the world net benefits from one primary OS; it's less work to target one OS than 50. And if you start coming out with special versions of Windows that aren't strict subsets, then you start needing special builds of various programs.

It's bad enough having to support NT and 9x. Don't make it worse, please?
May 9, 2005 7:58 PM
 

Scott said:

So here's one of the things that I could see coming out of a "Windows: Gaming edition" distro (he he). Bootable Windows games. I mean, you've instantly turned your Windows PC into a game console, except without all of the overhead of the stuff that you use from day to day. If the XNA stuff works out, it sounds like it will be easy to port between the Xbox and PC. Imagine being able to boot into World of Warcraft and not have all the overhead of the shell? Eeeking more performance out of your hardware is what building a game PC is all about. Maybe the Windows gaming edition isn't an installable OS at all, maybe it just reads your existing Windows install and loads the appropriate drivers for your system and then loads the game. Maybe you could specify other programs, like IM programs, that you want to boot?

Again this is a very specific instance, but I kind of like the idea of a live CD based Windows distro.

Just spitballing here.
May 9, 2005 7:59 PM
 

Rory said:

Chris -

"It's bad enough having to support NT and 9x. Don't make it worse, please?"

Bah - you know I don't have any power :)
May 9, 2005 8:19 PM
 

TristanK said:

Bootable Windows Games? No! I like running Outlook while playing games, sick as it sounds.

The answer appears to be larger DLLs, and less of them - "Load the Windows Gaming DLL!".
May 10, 2005 4:41 AM
 

Cliff said:

A version of Windows for tax perparers (Windows Tax Cut 2006), a version for Dentists (Windows Tooth Edition!), a version for gamers and so on. What's wrong with that? If you're not going to claim the idea then can I take it to Redmond as my own? Do you think they'll laugh at me?
May 10, 2005 6:09 PM
 

Anonymous said:

May 12, 2005 2:41 PM
 

TomB said:

I'm a couple of days late...

Have you looked into Windows XP Embedded.

Maybe I'm missing the point but you can use it to customize Windows XP to a point.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/embedded/default.aspx

There's also the Ultimate BootCD for Windows. Which is a customizable bootable CD. Obviously this one has some major licensing issues. http://www.ubcd4win.com/
May 13, 2005 2:20 PM
 

Andre said:

Windows poor nations - Starter Edition
Windows for games - Home Edition
Windows for entertainment - MCE
Windows for business - Professional
Windows for Technical people - Professional x64
Windows for customization - Embedded

And there will be more SKU's when LH reaches town. So, releasing the source code to a consortium is the most stupid idea in the whole wide world.

But I agree with releasing for hardware architectures such as Sparc, Risc and Power PC. But make it be like NT 4 where the instruction code is on one disk, and call it Windows XP Technical Edition.
May 14, 2005 12:35 AM
 

TrackBack said:

Maybe Rory was Right?
May 17, 2005 12:53 AM
New Comments to this post are disabled

About Rory

I *own* this site, you loser.