*/g/ intensifies*

There's a better way

>Open source software (GPL)
>Used for free by anyone on Linux
>Binaries are not available for Windows unless you pay
>Windows cucks pay for the privilege of using a (((superior))) system

The xchat business model

>>61411241
What's to stop Windows users from compiling it themselves? Or even a third party compiling binary builds for Windows and making them publicly available for zero cost?

Windows is fine.

i dont really understand why there isn't more competition with windows

surely a big company like samsung or ibm or intel has enough talented people to develop a fully usable and independent operating system

why is it only microsoft and apple and then 1000s of linuxes?

>>61411709
Samsung can't even develop a lagfree phone skin, whatever OS they develop would be a joke

>>61411709
There's no incentive and no need.

>>61411450
we could make an OSS license that would only allow software to be compiled and ran under OSS software

the right one would actually work

>>61411709
Obviously the standard use to be Apple, which is make both the hardware and the software. This was better because you could safely assume the hardware would be used to it's intended potential.

But then Microsoft (Bill Gates) was finally hired to develop his crackpot software Windows for Intel or HP or somebody other hardware company I don't remember. Microsoft would then proceed to deal with every Hardware manufacturer within a two-mile radius. "Use our software and people will come to your hardware because your hardware will run the same software their old hardware ran. You don't have to worry about spending research money building software, either, we'll do it for you." This was enticing, as it meant more time could be spent doing hardware research.

And so, Microsoft's Windows became standard with every other manufacturer except Apple (and some HP and Sun systems) because Apple had already developed the same OS, and Jobs/Wojack believed in hardware/software synergy. Because Windows became the guaranteed software for every home computer hardware manufacturer, software developers decided to build for windows. This would lead us in the position we are in today.

>>61411241
Yeah because some old guy won't switch back to windows media player from vlc, he'll just jump in and compile arch, you fucking idiot.
If OSS stopped supporting windows, their userbase would drop significantly. If this was doable, they would've done it a long time ago. Or were you thinking you came up with some groundbreaking idea?

>>61411650
No, it's too unstable, susceptible to viruses, and goes through an awful UI change every ten years for no good reason.

>>61411757
Would that be compatible with the GPL though?

>>61411841
>>61411709
There were times when Windows was tested, however. The closest, of course, being BeOS. BeOS' devs was gathering deals with high profile manufacturers, which, if succeeded, would of meant the fall of Windows (not the end, however, expect a more Pepsi/Coke situation). Windows stopped this by simply threatening those hardware manufacturers to choose between BeOS or Windows. They chose Windows, because it was the top OS at the time (Apple was in the shitter).

Ultimately it comes down to grandfathering. Grandfathering is the reason why, even now, many software developers develop for Windows first, macOS second, linux maybe. So for a company to develop an OS to rival Windows they would have to emulate it in some capacity. Your average tech user wants one thing; "I go online, I search for whatever I want, I download the program that does whatever I want, I click the installer, I click 'next' a couple times, and finally, I click on an icon and whatever I wanted pops up." The fulfillment of " I download the program that does whatever I want" is the hardest part, and it only can be achieved thorough a combination of emulation, licensing deals, and better performance.

Can you emulate windows and get away with it? If you do it the reactOS way and remake the entire thing by scratch; yes. If you do it the Pystar way and just take a bunch of libraries, do a little reverse engineering, and rock out; probably not. You would have to be very, VERY cautious and slick, and chances are you'd get lost in Microsoft's spaghetti-code anyway. You can do it, though, and if you ever get your "microhardOS" to properly emulate the NT kernel while still being legally grey enough for Jewish courts to pull a Tengen for you, get a manufacturer (which would most likely be chinese) to develop a nice unibody to sell, and advertise it as the "next-gen PC", I'd applaud you. Don't expect a high-profile company to do it, though. They make too much developing hardware.