Hello all! I am writing this thread to put up question which we need to all ask Microsoft. But we need at first to discuss this. 1. One version of Windows for desktop. 2. One version of Windows which we can put on all ARM devices like Linux. 3. Windows must be free and open source and this is what Nadella must do first. Can we ask him? Some questions. How you think why not OS model like it is for Canonical Ubuntu OS? Why not ask Nadella to think about this. x86, AMD64, ARM, Power architecture support. Does we need to ask Launchpad like portal or ask Microsoft to use Launchpad technology to provide one beta testing portal for all MS products? Will Windows be free for people which contains computers without Windows on which there is installed Linux? Any rumours, news? Any ideas more?
What are the more then the one Windows we know? Linux isn't magical in this regard. It needs heavy duty sourcecode wizardry in the kernel to work on such devices and behaves than at corethings for programming very differently. Windows isn't built for such extended open heart surgery. At least not yet. Do you also read news that don't think everything what comes from Redmond is evil. If so you would know that MS is working hard to enable such cross-platform usage in the future (there unifiying efforts in IoT and converging Phone whith Desktop Windows kernel) Yes Nadella is an opensource nut. (At least for MS standards) You know an OS doesn't appear suddenly from thin air without any cost in building it because you wanted it so. You must understand that the coders at MS in Redmond want to get paid for there hard work and feeding there families. OpenSource has there mighty pitfalls. For example the Heartbleed-Bug of Openssl. An overworked understaffed and underpaid team of two or three realy passionate coders pragramm a libary which is used in nearly every Linux for free and they don't even got a useful codereview and bughunting out of there OpenSource-deal. Everybody used it for free and didn't even bother to look at the SourceCode. One of the main argument for OpenSource from the OpenSource-Scene is that everybody CAN look at the SourceCode and CAN fix bugs. In real life NOBODY looks at SourceCode and EVERYBODY complains about bugs and simply uses it for FREE. In some respects you can consider OpenSource as a form of modern slyvery of briliant coders which enslaved themselve. Well you get with Windows 8 support for x86, AMD64 and with the RT-Versions on ARM. The Power architecture WAS mostly only used by Apple on the client sector. You might look them up to understand on what you even want to ask us. Or and by the way. You also can get a PC without a Window-Licence. And if PC comes with a Windows-Licence it wasn't free. The mufacture of the PC had to pay a licence-fee for it to MS. You paid practicaly for this Licence by buying the PC. If a Linux is installed on such a PC doesn't realy invalidates a Windows-Licence!
1. I agree that there should be some different versions for desktop, and I don't mean the difference between core and pro. The end-user non-tech-saavy version should be more oriented toward bubbly graphics, internet browsing, and the store. The power-user version should be half-way between the current enterprise model and the server model in terms of both functionality and design. 2. Don't care about mobile devices. 3. They will never open-source their product as long as they are reliant on sales rather than advertising. Google can get away with it because they will hook in their search engine and youtube stuff that they make most of their money from. MS doesn't have that selling point. Remember, they *could* have gone that direction if Bing took off, but it didn't. No advertising revenue = no open-source.