Apparently, the uptake of Microsoft's "Windows Linux Subsystem" is miniscule despite it being blared from all MS PR speakers at full volume. Smart technologists realise that enclosing Linux within Windows is a stage in Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Locking the magnificent eagle, symbol of freedom, into a dingy little cage... is not a compelling proposition. Just drop Windows and use Linux. Only a fool puts on the shackles voluntarily.


I partially disagree. My own theory, concocted about 12 years ago is that in 20–25 years would simply be a compatibility layer running on a kernel. We're about half way there now.

Plus, I got a drunken mate to agree with it once (don't believe anyone telling you he was just trying to change the subject).

@0 problem is that keeping Windows in the mix perpetuates the fundamental brokenness of proprietary software. Proprietary software, like censorship, is a fundamental bug the world should be routing around, not incorporating into the mix.


Not really. Windows already is a relic of a bygone era. Proprietary software has existed before and will continue to exist after it, in spite of increasing commoditisation. In some cases for perfectly legitimate competitive reasons.

The underlying principle hasn't changed though. Proprietary software was just one mechanism that got abused. Nowadays it's data silos that one has to worry about.

@0 I think proprietary software should be outlawed. My reasons: I think the argument is unassailable, but I'd like to hear an example of a "legitimate reason"...


> an example of a "legitimate reason"...

Software or firmware required for the provision of a service, or implementation of a product, in a highly vertical application, especially one where you might have only one or two other competitors.

Insofar as the software implements the results of your R&D efforts, you need to protect those from competitors if you are to recover the investment and eventually make a profit.

If you can think of a better way I'm all ears.



It'd be an unjustified simplification to say that the above leads to abuse. It can, but it doesn't have to.

It's the underlying causes that make proprietary undesirable that need to be addressed, not the symptoms.

@0 I don't think its a simplification. I strongly believe that incentives eventually lead to behaviours and then to culture. I think proprietary software culture is inherently broken and bad for the market it claims to serve. To me this is the cause, not the symptom.


Well, it is one point of view. That intellectual property law has been repeatedly abused over the years is something that not many people would dispute. That it could be largely improved to incentivise a move towards a situation where is the dominant option, that's also possible and IMO likely desirable, but you cannot stop closed software without infringing on fundamental liberties as has already been said. Beware of unintended consequences.


Briefly, comes as a result of either:

* a commoditisation effect, where it makes sense to share the costs of developing common tools that do not however provide a competitive advantage (operating systems and dev tools are the most obvious examples);

* a need for , such as in the public sector.

The second aspect is the one that initiatives such as public money public code fall into, which I personally I'm rather enthusiastic about.

@0 The way I'd implement it is this: Gov'ts would change procurement policy (e.g. in line with the Digital Nations Charter - - note points 2-5) to which many (including mine) are signatories saying: "we will only procure software which demonstrably complies with open standards and if we (i.e. the taxpayer) pay for development, it will be released under a Copyleft license. I believe that would fundamentally shift software development with few unintended consequences.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
La Quadrature du Net - Mastodon - Media Fédéré est une serveur Mastodon francophone, géré par La Quadrature du Net.