i say 8/10

Ummm....Befor you ask about stuff like that,can you tell me (newb) what windows open source is.I voted for 10 but what is it,is it like Mambo Open Source?Please help me understand this topic?Thanks,in advance.

If you are running a poll on asking users if they think Windows should be open source, then I would have to say (and I voted aswell) I don't really care lol.

Sure it would be cool if it was open source, although a pain in the butt for Microsoft to deal with, but not having the source hasn't hurt me.

It's extensible enough for me not to care.

if Microsoft WILL EVER open source (highly doubt it), it will certainly make it one of the best OSes, it has some nifty GUI components that makes it idiot-proof and if we slap it on a *NIX-like base, then that will be awesome

xboxrulz

Who really cares... It's not going to happen anyway. And if it ever happens, I'm pretty sure we won't be alive to see it.

Who would want it open source anyway? If windows can be fairly exploited as if, imagine what people could do if they had the source.......

They could find even more ways to screw with it. Meh >_>.

Open source would obviously be the end of M$. But I voted 10 b/c I like M$ OS and that would make it free. It's easy to use, although I do have linux on my pc as well. M$ is just compatible with most things and that's what I've always been with since V 3.11. Sometime I wish I had started in linux, but hey it's worked thus far.

Mandriva offers open source version for free and for their bundled version you pay so much I think. Plus licensing etc would be an issue, but still there would be so many competitors releasing free versions that M$ couldn't survive, or at least start losing money. Great idea but not realistic.

Also as stated above, lots of exploits and security holes. File permissions is a big deal with XP. Very easy to do in linux, but it's a little more difficult to make things secure in M$.

IF Microsoft ever makes it open source, there's no doubt it would be the most DANGEROUS operating system to run. Why? When Microsoft opened their big trap flabbing it about a HUGE security hole in Windows 2000 BEFORE they released a patch ring a bell? Yeah, a virus was out before a patch was. That's why it is dangerous. Too many security holes in it and too many people & servers running it. My high school runs a Windows 2003 thin client server for a thin client lab we have and my vocational school where I go for Cisco networking is built off a Windows network (it sucks, but the data center where the servers are hosted also is located in the school and this data center hosts other school's web sites on Windows NT 4 servers, the grade and attendance systems as well for the other schools). So as you can see, it's dangerous.

[N]F

Are you sure? Is Microsoft planning like that? Hurrah!!!

Windows isn't cheap, no it isn't! It cost a whole lot of a fortune as compared to what we can use! Anyway, that makes one of the reasons why Microsoft cannot afford to make their OS open-source!

Besides, everyone knows how 'patched-up' Windows is! Firstly, all its modules are vulnerable to at least 1 issue that crashes the whole OS, at the time of release. Then they patch it up by Service Pack(s). So, if they make their OS open-source, they'd be revealing their secrets about the jumbled-up and faulty source-code of their OS(s)! They can't risk showing people what a mess they're selling them! (I don't mean to say Windows is a mess, but it still does crash, doesn't it? )

As also, if they were to tidy-up the code for release, they'd take another few years to release their next OS! (Look at Vista , damn! ) But you got to agree, there's no OS like Windows to have a closed-source, a great GUI and the worst bugs of the OS world, to entertain the worst viruses of the universe in it!