Author Topic: Why not open source old stuff? (Read 1627 times)

anphanax · « **on:** 5 December 2003, 06:49 »

I don't understand why companies wont release code for projects that are no longer being worked on because of their obsoleteness. If the code still exists, it would be nice for hobbyists to able to tinker with

.

If you're a profit-driven company, what's the big deal of releasing code that wont make you or anyone else any money (release it /w license terms prohibiting commercial usage /wout written consent).

I mean, if the code's crap or is basically stolen and poorly commented with no real structure, I can understand a company not wanting to embaress themselves.. but what other reason is there? From my experience, It doesn't take a lot of effort to make source code availible for the community, after you spend about 30 minutes digging it up.

IE: What would be the harm in Microsoft releasing code for Windows 3.0 (Not 3.1, 3.0. Yes, 3.0 exists)? It's a "16-bit" operating system built over a decade ago. Has windows changed so little that by releasing this code, it could actually harm Microsoft?

Aaron Ni · « **Reply #1 on:** 5 December 2003, 21:04 »

Even if a company no longer makes money off software because it's not available that fact remains that it's their choice to release it, they may not be hiding anything, they may just choose to not bother with it.

EDIT: To simplify.

Business "It's our code and we'll do what we damn well want with it!"

Dork "Well then why dont you release the code?"

Business "We wont because we dont have to, tough shit!"

And besides, it's MS we're talking about, they're just plain greedy while other companies just dont give a shit.

[ December 05, 2003: Message edited by: Aaron-V4.0 ]

suselinux · « **Reply #2 on:** 5 December 2003, 21:18 »

If Microsoft Opensourced NT wich is old, you would have the base of Windows XP wich is recent.

free competion would pop up all over the place!

WMD · « **Reply #3 on:** 6 December 2003, 06:36 »

quote:
Originally posted by anphanax:
IE: What would be the harm in Microsoft releasing code for Windows 3.0 (Not 3.1, 3.0. Yes, 3.0 exists)? It's a "16-bit" operating system built over a decade ago. Has windows changed so little that by releasing this code, it could actually harm Microsoft?

In a HUGE fact of irony....

YES!!! \o/

Not to mention, I know someone who disassembled some Windows code recently. He said it was such a huge, giantic mess, that fixing it up wouldn't be worth the gain in knowledge you'd get.

jtpenrod · « **Reply #4 on:** 11 December 2003, 12:15 »

quote:

I don't understand why companies wont release code for projects that are no longer being worked on because of their obsoleteness. If the code still exists, it would be nice for hobbyists to able to tinker with .

If you're a profit-driven company, what's the big deal of releasing code that wont make you or anyone else any money (release it /w license terms prohibiting commercial usage /wout written consent). [...] but what other reason is there?

Suppose that Microsoft did that, by Open Sourcing Win 95, which they don't have any further interest in. As with Linux, a hacker community would grow up around it. They would continue to code for it, and they'd fix all the bugs. What happens when there are not only new, free apps for it, but its quality rockets past Win XP?

People who want Windows will take the free, Open Source, quality old one over the crappy, expensive, bloated new one.

Ain't gonna happen!
______________________________________
Live Free or Die: Linux

If software can be free, why can't dolphins?

latino4ever8 · « **Reply #5 on:** 30 December 2003, 00:55 »

Im not a programmer so i dont know the details... but i would guess that at the very least the competitors would know their tricks, if they have any... and the other would be that maybe its not that simple, maybe its more than just digging it up... -who knows... maybe its too much work...

M51DPS · « **Reply #6 on:** 30 December 2003, 02:29 »

There's also the fact that if microsoft made any of their products open source now, they'd be showing support for the very movement they're trying to destory. But still, if only companies would make all of their stuff open source in the first place, they'd have all of it's benefits in the first place.

WMD · « **Reply #7 on:** 3 January 2004, 05:56 »

quote:
Originally posted by jtpenrod:

Suppose that Microsoft did that, by Open Sourcing Win 95... but its quality rockets past Win XP?

Well this really can't happen, unless they rewrite the entire kernel to be 32-bit. And there goes compatibility. After all, even without any bugs, the 16-bit DOS kernel would be rather lousy.

mobrien_12 · « **Reply #8 on:** 4 January 2004, 08:15 »

Don't forget, MS was pretty pissed off when that australian charity was installing unlicenced old copies of DOS and Windows 3.x on old compuers to be given to poor children.

That wasn't even source... just binaries and they threatened this charity over software that they had declared dead and hadn't sold for years.

I agree with the idea of open sourcing old code which is not of value to the company anymore. Caldera used to do this (before Darth McBride came in). They opensourced GEM and CPM...

Kintaro · « **Reply #9 on:** 4 January 2004, 12:26 »

it would cost them money to release code, it would take them three minutes of hard corpate labour.

SameBrian · « **Reply #10 on:** 21 January 2004, 11:06 »

My suggestion would be to email individual companites who have obsolete software and simply ask them about it...maybe they don't because no one has ever expressed an interest in it...I mean...in reality..if someone were to fix up the program than the company could buy it right back and sell it again...

restin256 · « **Reply #11 on:** 17 February 2004, 05:40 »

Apologising for lurking wouldn't help, but where's the source to 3.0, anphanax?

[ February 17, 2004: Message edited by: restin256 ]

insomnia · « **Reply #12 on:** 28 February 2004, 21:07 »

Why only Windows?
How about OS X...
Or even QT's first versions...

restin256 · « **Reply #13 on:** 29 February 2004, 05:22 »

Well, in philosiphy, Windows 3.11 and down works just like Linux - a graphical front-end for a command prompt. That's exactly why Linux is so damn fast, and Windows XP is so slow. XP is just a giant flash program with good hardware detection, while Linux/Unix/Mac OS runs just as good on half the speed. With the source to 3.1 and DOS you could increase the hardware detection, hack the kernel, make prettier GUIs, and BAM. You'd have yourself the next version of ReactOS.

hm_murdock · « **Reply #14 on:** 29 February 2004, 15:20 »

You'd have so much to do if you started with MS DOS and Win3x

« previous next » Print Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7 Go Down Author Topic: Why not open source old stuff? (Read 1627 times) anphanax Member Posts: 197 Kudos: 11 Why not open source old stuff? « on: 5 December 2003, 06:49 » I don't understand why companies wont release code for projects that are no longer being worked on because of their obsoleteness. If the code still exists, it would be nice for hobbyists to able to tinker with . If you're a profit-driven company, what's the big deal of releasing code that wont make you or anyone else any money (release it /w license terms prohibiting commercial usage /wout written consent). I mean, if the code's crap or is basically stolen and poorly commented with no real structure, I can understand a company not wanting to embaress themselves.. but what other reason is there? From my experience, It doesn't take a lot of effort to make source code availible for the community, after you spend about 30 minutes digging it up. IE: What would be the harm in Microsoft releasing code for Windows 3.0 (Not 3.1, 3.0. Yes, 3.0 exists)? It's a "16-bit" operating system built over a decade ago. Has windows changed so little that by releasing this code, it could actually harm Microsoft? Logged Aaron Ni VIP Posts: 356 Kudos: 33 Why not open source old stuff? « Reply #1 on: 5 December 2003, 21:04 » Even if a company no longer makes money off software because it's not available that fact remains that it's their choice to release it, they may not be hiding anything, they may just choose to not bother with it. EDIT: To simplify. Business "It's our code and we'll do what we damn well want with it!" Dork "Well then why dont you release the code?" Business "We wont because we dont have to, tough shit!" And besides, it's MS we're talking about, they're just plain greedy while other companies just dont give a shit. [ December 05, 2003: Message edited by: Aaron-V4.0 ] Logged You know me.... really... suselinux Member Posts: 711 Kudos: 30 Why not open source old stuff? « Reply #2 on: 5 December 2003, 21:18 » If Microsoft Opensourced NT wich is old, you would have the base of Windows XP wich is recent. free competion would pop up all over the place! Logged WMD Global Moderator Posts: 2,525 Kudos: 391 Why not open source old stuff? « Reply #3 on: 6 December 2003, 06:36 » quote: Originally posted by anphanax: IE: What would be the harm in Microsoft releasing code for Windows 3.0 (Not 3.1, 3.0. Yes, 3.0 exists)? It's a "16-bit" operating system built over a decade ago. Has windows changed so little that by releasing this code, it could actually harm Microsoft? In a HUGE fact of irony.... YES!!! \o/ Not to mention, I know someone who disassembled some Windows code recently. He said it was such a huge, giantic mess, that fixing it up wouldn't be worth the gain in knowledge you'd get. Logged My BSOD gallery "Yes there's nothing wrong with going around being rude and selfish, killing people and fucking married women, but being childish is a cardinal sin around these parts." -Aloone_Jonez jtpenrod VIP Posts: 675 Kudos: 105 Why not open source old stuff? « Reply #4 on: 11 December 2003, 12:15 » quote: I don't understand why companies wont release code for projects that are no longer being worked on because of their obsoleteness. If the code still exists, it would be nice for hobbyists to able to tinker with . If you're a profit-driven company, what's the big deal of releasing code that wont make you or anyone else any money (release it /w license terms prohibiting commercial usage /wout written consent). [...] but what other reason is there? Suppose that Microsoft did that, by Open Sourcing Win 95, which they don't have any further interest in. As with Linux, a hacker community would grow up around it. They would continue to code for it, and they'd fix all the bugs. What happens when there are not only new, free apps for it, but its quality rockets past Win XP? People who want Windows will take the free, Open Source, quality old one over the crappy, expensive, bloated new one. Ain't gonna happen! ______________________________________ Live Free or Die: Linux If software can be free, why can't dolphins? Logged Live Free or Die: Linux If software can be free, why can't dolphins? latino4ever8 Newbie Posts: 15 Kudos: 55 Why not open source old stuff? « Reply #5 on: 30 December 2003, 00:55 » Im not a programmer so i dont know the details... but i would guess that at the very least the competitors would know their tricks, if they have any... and the other would be that maybe its not that simple, maybe its more than just digging it up... -who knows... maybe its too much work... Logged RHIXK - WM - NUZ- AE - JL 1=IL 2=ZR 3=EB 4=A 5=S 6=GB 7=T 8=B 9=Q 0=O M51DPS VIP Posts: 608 Kudos: 30 Why not open source old stuff? « Reply #6 on: 30 December 2003, 02:29 » There's also the fact that if microsoft made any of their products open source now, they'd be showing support for the very movement they're trying to destory. But still, if only companies would make all of their stuff open source in the first place, they'd have all of it's benefits in the first place. Logged WMD Global Moderator Posts: 2,525 Kudos: 391 Why not open source old stuff? « Reply #7 on: 3 January 2004, 05:56 » quote: Originally posted by jtpenrod: Suppose that Microsoft did that, by Open Sourcing Win 95... but its quality rockets past Win XP? Well this really can't happen, unless they rewrite the entire kernel to be 32-bit. And there goes compatibility. After all, even without any bugs, the 16-bit DOS kernel would be rather lousy. Logged My BSOD gallery "Yes there's nothing wrong with going around being rude and selfish, killing people and fucking married women, but being childish is a cardinal sin around these parts." -Aloone_Jonez mobrien_12 VIP Posts: 2,138 Kudos: 711 Why not open source old stuff? « Reply #8 on: 4 January 2004, 08:15 » Don't forget, MS was pretty pissed off when that australian charity was installing unlicenced old copies of DOS and Windows 3.x on old compuers to be given to poor children. That wasn't even source... just binaries and they threatened this charity over software that they had declared dead and hadn't sold for years. I agree with the idea of open sourcing old code which is not of value to the company anymore. Caldera used to do this (before Darth McBride came in). They opensourced GEM and CPM... Logged In brightest day, in darkest night, no evil shall escape my sight.... Kintaro Member Posts: 6,539 Kudos: 254 Greed is the sole driver of human progress Why not open source old stuff? « Reply #9 on: 4 January 2004, 12:26 » it would cost them money to release code, it would take them three minutes of hard corpate labour. Logged Refalm rules with a broken fist! Your Internet needs You: http://tmrepository.com/ My shitty website: www.johntate.org Ever been geeky enough to be able to talk on finch over ssh? With a www.fawltyservers.com shell account, your e-penis is bigger. My extremist blog: www.extremecapitalists.com SameBrian Newbie Posts: 17 Kudos: 0 Why not open source old stuff? « Reply #10 on: 21 January 2004, 11:06 » My suggestion would be to email individual companites who have obsolete software and simply ask them about it...maybe they don't because no one has ever expressed an interest in it...I mean...in reality..if someone were to fix up the program than the company could buy it right back and sell it again... Logged restin256 Member Posts: 257 Kudos: 0 Why not open source old stuff? « Reply #11 on: 17 February 2004, 05:40 » Apologising for lurking wouldn't help, but where's the source to 3.0, anphanax? [ February 17, 2004: Message edited by: restin256 ] Logged This isn't the place you vent your opinions. insomnia Member Posts: 587 Kudos: 0 Why not open source old stuff? « Reply #12 on: 28 February 2004, 21:07 » Why only Windows? How about OS X... Or even QT's first versions... Logged Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire Injustice is happening now; suffering is happening now. We have choices to make now. To insist on absolute certainty before starting to apply ethics to life decisions is a way of choosing to be amoral. R. Stallman http://www.pvda.be/ restin256 Member Posts: 257 Kudos: 0 Why not open source old stuff? « Reply #13 on: 29 February 2004, 05:22 » Well, in philosiphy, Windows 3.11 and down works just like Linux - a graphical front-end for a command prompt. That's exactly why Linux is so damn fast, and Windows XP is so slow. XP is just a giant flash program with good hardware detection, while Linux/Unix/Mac OS runs just as good on half the speed. With the source to 3.1 and DOS you could increase the hardware detection, hack the kernel, make prettier GUIs, and BAM. You'd have yourself the next version of ReactOS. Logged This isn't the place you vent your opinions. hm_murdock VIP Posts: 2,629 Kudos: 378 The Lord of Thyme Why not open source old stuff? « Reply #14 on: 29 February 2004, 15:20 » You'd have so much to do if you started with MS DOS and Win3x Logged Go the fuck ~ Print Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7 Go Up « previous next » Stop Microsoft » Forum » Miscellaneous » Applications » Why not open source old stuff?
Share or donate

Author Topic: Why not open source old stuff? (Read 1627 times)

Share or donate