If Microsoft ended up making NT open-source under a license similar to the APSL, do you think it would fail to gain momentum with the community just like how Darwin did in the 2000s?And if so, would that be primarily because of the license or the technical aspects of NT itself? Would an open-source NT provide any advantages over Linux?
>>101233239It would be somewhat easier to use a VM to test Windows programs that don't depend on Microsoft's user space or runtime (e.g. MinGW)Like how you can use qemu to run executables that are native to Darwin.
>>101233239>Would an open-source NT provide any advantages over Linux?Software ecosystem, arguably the only reason Windows still holds any relevancy.
>>101233239darwin failed at becoming the server OS it was supposed to be.lol @ itards and tim cocksucker ft. steve AIDS
>>101233920>darwin failed at becoming the server OS it was supposed to be.>>lol @ itards and tim cocksucker ft. steve AIDSfreetards unironically talk like this and wonder why they're virgins at 50 years old
>>101234048Jay-sama... It's time to stop this, for yourself and family.
>>101234048kek
>>101233239If MS opensourced NT they woupd be sued for FOSS code theft.
>>101233239Its not exactly clear what constitutes Windows NT, just the kernel, ntdll too? What about the other supporting modules such as hal.dll, or the filesystem drivers?Also NT without the windows components is kind of limited. There is no gui, all you get with native nt is a single 80 column console.>>101237476The source code to various versions has leaked, they have not been sued yet.
>>101234048wat
>>101237565>they have not been sued yet.I'm pretty sure leaked code is not admissible as evidence in court, which is bullshit.
>>101233239Valve would instantly implement the entirety of NT and no one will ever think of using windows again.
