Linux is not Open Source

In two other threads we showed as a matter of logic that Linux is not
true open source.  I will not repeat those arguments here, but as
Lusotec (a Linux fanboi) rightly acknowledged, what Red Hat puts into
the Linux kernel is meant to bolster the fortunes of Red Hat.  Whether
or not that also helps the casual Linux user is incidental.  Freetard
buyer beware.

Now let's talk about why (ironically) defacto Microsoft's OS is true
open source.

First, let's get some semantics out of the way.  I'm not saying
Microsoft's kernel is "open source" as defined by Websters. No. That
would be "de jure" open source and it requires that the source code be
published.  But DE FACTO (as a practical matter) it is open source,
and here's why:

1)  Because of the alignment of the computing public with the fortunes
of Microsoft, Microsoft has a strong incentive to make sure its OS
does what is proper and right for the user.  90%+ market share means
it will do so. Contrast that with Red Hat.  With a small percentage of
less than 1% market share, what incentive does Red Hat have to do what
is right?  Very little.  It's like those virus writers who have
incentive to steer you to one of their malware sites, and rip you off,
since it's likely they'll never see you again.  But with MSFT, if they
were to do that, the whole world would be up in arms and try and
switch to Apple, or Unix, or even (theoretically) to Linux.  The fact
that they haven't means MSFT is "doing the right thing" and making
sure it's OS--with a few hiccups--is not doing the customer wrong.

2) Results matter, not printed source code.  As a coder, I can tell
you that you DON'T NEED the source code. Nope. Run the program--does
it work?  If not, get the programmer to fix it.  You don't fix it
yourself, you ask the programmer (here Microsoft) to fix it.  You,
consumer, don't need to soil your hands.  It's that simple.  If I, as
a Linux programmer, offload garbage onto you, the user, then say
"Well, here's the source code, feel free to fix it yourself", I'm not
doing you any favors. To the contrary.  Contrast that with MSFT.

3)  Keeping the kernel source code closed is a PLUS, not a minus.  It
keeps hackers and the bad guys from exploiting even more of the OS
than they have.  Opening the source code is like giving away the keys
to the castle to the bad guys. Nuff said.  That's so obvious that if
you don't get it, you just don't get it.

I can think of another half dozen ideas why de facto Microsoft's OS is
true open source, but let's stop here since I doubt even these simple
facts will sink it with you Linux diehards.

And die hard you will, with a less than 1% market share and falling...

c-c-c-combo breaker!

What a crappy /g/-quality troll.

Now let's talk about why (ironically) defacto Microsoft's OS is true open source.
Open source means it follows an open source license. A minimal requirement is to have the source published in some form, but it's not sufficient to have it called open source.

Regarding point 1:
What does that have to do with being open source? That only has to do with popularity.
Regarding point 2:
It's very helpful to have the source code for a coder. They can extend the software how they like and fix bugs. You're usually not paying for Linux support - you have to do it yourself. You could pay for Linux support and have someone else do it for you, just like you pay MS.
Regarding point 3:
Don't kid yourself. What the NT kernel does is no secret. Both ``good guys'' and ``bad guys'' know it very well. Microsoft has published the actual kernel source code for some universities, and they share it with some of their partners (a lot), also there was a leak in the past of the source code, if you want to see it. It may not be open source, but something more akin to shared source. Frankly, I think MS should give the source to the customer too, legally. In the past, large companies gave the source for their payed products to the customer so they could do their own private improvements if they wanted, without having to pay for support, but MS is greedy and wants more money, so they won't do that. Giving source to the customer and being commercial are not incompatible things. However, MS does give something akin to source code to those that want to peek into the kernel, they give you full symbols for almost everything. This means that someone who wants to reverse engineer any part of the OS will have ZERO trouble doing so, if they have full symbols and even copious documentation.

Windows' APIs are fairly well documented, which makes them a fairly solid base to build Windows-specific things upon, but it's not standardized or open source.

I can think of another half dozen ideas why de facto Microsoft's OS is

true open source, but let's stop here since I doubt even these simple

facts will sink it with you Linux diehards.

What the fuck is "true open source"? I made my point that NT isn't as closed as it is, while YOU failed to make that point, so I proved your point, while you didn't! However, Windows does not meet many other requirements of being open source, so it is not.

In closing, back to /g/ with you.

Just skimmed trough it.

Two points:

1. If you revise your own arguments you can see that they are full of holes and debatable arguments. You don't have a solid 100% true base argument.

2. Open-source is quite tricky to implement especially in a world were buisness are in favour of closed-source and perhaps there isn't a working implementation of pure open-source yet but there could be in the future.

Also as for the benefits you need to see the three perspectives:
1. The developer team perspective and future programmers perspective.

2. The end user perspective.

3. The buisness/corporate perspective. 

From all perspective open/closed source have different advantages and disadvantages which are not universal but subjective to the task at hand.

A game mod might be better open source but a bespoke payroll for a certain company will only be of advantage to a cracker if open source because no one will be using their payroll software.

So which system gets exploited more often, Windows or any of those that can be called Linux?

Depends on which is most popular. Obviously Windows has more successful attacks on it since there's a larger userbase, but Linux has plenty of vulns too (almost every kernel version).

YHBT i would say

If you revise your own arguments you can see that they are full of holes and debatable arguments. You don't have a solid 100% true base argument.
Dude, you have been tolled. Good arguments are not necessary for tolling people