Synopsis

This light essay is something I wrote to get out of the way so I can write on more important things. Enjoy.

Why Bill Gates is Evil

Evil

Self-serving, dyadic. Unable to see that alturism can be self-beneficial due to limited perspective based on zero-sum economics (which does not apply to reality on Earth anymore - see Buckminister Fuller, etc.)

Why a Good Microsoft would Open the Source Code to windows

Opening the soruce code to the windows Operating System suite (now unified as Windows NT derivatives) would allow for the enthusiasm and expertise which is currently invested in technologies such as Linux and NetBSD to be divested into improving the foundation of the Microsoft Office Suite, as well as the Windows Operating Environment (GUI, Accessories, helper applications).

This would allow for a lower overall cost of development, as the feature enhancements made to the Operating Environment (which includes the fresh new look of Windows XP, the inclusion of Internet Explorer, and the inclusion of Windows Media Player) would be receiving funds and attention which are currently divided between this and the Operating System (which includes boring, mundane things such as drivers, the Win32 API, the MFC, and DirectX).

Microsoft could become a benevolent dictator of a Windows Operating System source tree, and bundle a binary distribution of such with its Operating Enviornment in a tightly integrated product. As it does now, but the difference is that competitive Operating Environments could also be made. Furthemore, the Operating System would be more sturdy, having most, if not all, of its bugs fixed by "technology junkies" who have an intrinsic love of programming (as they currently do for Linux).

Arguments against it

(Why It has not happened)

1. Self-delusion: Microsoft believes that Open Source is wrong
2. Monopoly mindset: Bill, as an average or below-average programmer, knows that he will not be able to compete in an open market
3. Timing: The .NET initiative, including the CLI, has alternative Open Source implementations. Perhaps this is the "way out" for Microsoft as it prepares to change strategies to adapt to the ever-changine marketplace. However, meanwhile, sustainable development models for Open Source are few and far between (hobbies are not sustainable as business enterprises). Hence, and also, to maximise profits in the short term (by avoiding the expense of a code release), they stay closed
4. Legal issues: Windows is know to be built, at least partially, on code which was blatantly stolen from competitors who had inferior legal forces backing them. These competitors were either forced into bankrupcy by drawn out court proceedings or bought out by Microsoft.
5. Shame: The Windows OS could be such a mess of code, that no-one in their right mind would use it, especially when they are alternatives such as OpenBSD, which has passed stingent, line-by-line security audits of its code.
6. Momentum: Change is difficult. Even if Bill decided today that he should open the source to the Windows OS, he may not be able to do this within the framework which exists within his corporation. Furthermore, it forces him to rethink the concept of pay-for-use software. How could someone who caused this meme to become widespread now turn around and destroy it? His beliefs act to chain his intellect.

Why it doesn't matter

Most hardware is closed. This prevents cloning, but also makes it difficult or impossible to write drivers. E.g. Winmodems. Hence, Windows will always have signifigantly higher hardware compatibility. 

K31. 29 Nov. 2002.