"because they've been crushed by the enormous efforts of open source"

As opposed to their own ineptitude (e.g. Vista and Windows 8) or the changing of the guard from original founders?

I'm certain open source played a role, but I suspect a secondary one. Heck, if post XP Windows didn't suck so much, I and my parents (who nowadays run what I build them) would be using it instead of Linux for our desktops.

Vista and Windows 8 aren't the problem. Lack of presence on servers and mobile devices is the problem -- those are the two key spaces where OSS platforms have won out.

Linux is still not a significant player on desktops. Microsoft is still completely dominating that space.

Nobody in a ten mile radius of me gives a crap about what is running on servers or phones. Most of them do not recognize an Android smartphone as a legitimate computer. They do not know what a CPU is, they do not know what a hard drive is, and they think their monitor on the desk is the computer and the tower in the closet is the "CPU".

Windows has the mindshare of the masses. When many upper-middle class white Americans want to write a document, they can only fathom word. When they want to do a spreadsheet, they can only fathom Excel. When they want to draw, they can only fathom Photoshop.

It isn't about options or features or anything, I'm talking about the super majority of people who cannot any longer comprehend the existence of anything but what they know - where being presented with Linux destroys their world view. They talk about OSX like its an easy bake oven rather than another computer, or as if its another desktop UI for Windows that also runs Office.

Which is why Microsofts open source efforts are pretty much all on the developer end. They know their userbase is completely ignorant to everything just the way they intended, and it would take years of retraining to push the public conscience away from the mindset that Microsoft Windows is the personal computer, and everything else is some gadget.

Microsoft's board cares, which is why there was a change in leadership. That's the subject hga raised and is what my reply is in reference to.

Mobile devices I firmly ascribe to ineptitude, and can supply some 2nd and 3rd hand details I've read about.

Servers are more complicated. In the mid-90s Windows NT started dropping in quality, and the much older decision to have mandatory file locking resulted in situations where creating a server with a major MS server application could require ~ 20 reboots. And many more bug and security fixes require reboots than they do on UNIX(TM) based/inspired platforms.

Then one could argue ineptitude in marketing when Microsoft didn't cut deals that could have made their software competitive for mass installations. I really wonder about that, because so many of these need source, but it's "a path not traveled", except internally with Azure.

"Apple and Google do not contribute code freely, nor do they contribute a significant amount of their code. The contributions are limited to areas in which an advantage exists."

This is simply false, actually. But of course, you have no evidence of this, only rhetoric, while i actually see literally every code contribution google makes.

By all means contradict me. Do they open source more than 25% of their code written?

More than 10%?

More than 1%?

That's not what you claimed. You claimed they do not contribute code freely; they certainly do. It might not be a very significant percentage if their code written, but it's a fact that they contribute code to open source projects, and they do not charge for it.

I see the misunderstanding. When I say "contribute code freely" I mean "without restriction."

You are certainly aware that the vast majority of code is under strict restrictions and will be leveraged for competitive/controlling purposes rather than being shared. Employees wishing to freely contribute code in these domains will have their requests denied.

We've both been employed by large SV companies; we both know how this works. The majority of software will be used in an attempt to control the market.

"You are certainly aware that the vast majority of code is under strict restrictions and will be leveraged for competitive/controlling purposes rather than being shared. Employees wishing to freely contribute code in these domains will have their requests denied. "

?????? None of this is true. I mean, literally none of this. I don't even know where to begin.

This isn't a complicated statement. Why are you struggling with it?

Google does not open source the VAST majority of their code -- it remains tightly restricted. Surely agree this is an accurate statement?

Because it's an incredibly vague statement that is open to many interpretations?

As written, actually, i don't agree with it.

Google has open sourced > 100 million lines of source code, depending on how you count.

I can't tell you what percent this is, but it is quite significant

It is the vast majority of a number of products, and not the vast majority of a number of other products.

In fact, for some subsidiaries, all of the code is open source. For some, it isn't.

So your statement depends on a lot - who are you counting, what is "their code" (Code we've written, code we've modified, or code we use), etc

If you make a detailed enough statement, i'd probably agree. But as written, there are plenty of cases where google open sources the vast majority of it's code.

If you insist on continuing to be disingenuous we can simply end the conversation.

> Consider what's happened with Java in recent years.

What has happened with Java in recent years?

One thing i can think of is that the 'official' Sun/Oracle JDK has gone from being closed source, to having a second-class GPL'd derivative, to being built on a GPL'd core. The amount of proprietary closed-source code has gone from 4% to 1% to nothing that doesn't have a free replacement today.

> What has happened with Java in recent years?

Your feigned ignorance is disingenuous. An enormous legal battle over the platform took place within the past decade.

We are very lucky that the outcome was favorable and that the platform has been able to continue to improve.