I'm the author of the article thanks to all of you for getting into the debate!

To radmuzom who says I have no clue about MSFT in the enterprise is mistaken. Actually I worked in enterprise IT as a Systems admin for many years, so i do have some clue that MSFT makes a lot of cash in the Enterprise. Obviously, Office, Sharepoint, Excel Services, SQL Server, former Azure etc.

I'm no Windows hater -- I clung to windows 7 as my team all went MacOSX and I always have been totally agnostic about this stuff, really just using the best tool for the job is my motto.

I'll tell you, the Windows File Explorer still kicks ass on the damned Finder. Don't get me started on Google. Anyway.

In fact if you check my resume, I was CEO of a startup that built one of the first Java Spreadsheet SDK for Excel by reverse engineering the Excel file format in Java and selling to the big enterprises that depend upon Excel. I did this over 12 years, and sold the company (Extentech) in 2012.

We also competed with Microsoft as an Open Source company by providing a great open source product called OpenXLS (sf.net/projects/openxls)

I am pretty much an Enterprise Java/Excel expert at the byte level, and know the business models around Enterprise software and open source as a weapon of choice in this area is something I've studied for years.

So aaanyway, not like my feelings are hurt, but I do know a thing or two about both Open Source, Microsoft, and Microsoft products for the enterprise and Consumer.

Maybe read author bios before assuming you can judge what the author knows.

Your point that your bank will never switch from windows in a million years or whatever is kind of ignorant because just the fact that Windows goes open source will not magically rip the OS from your phone or uninstall itself from your bank PCs.

That would be done exactly how?

And to those that say Microsoft cannot afford it... Of course it will come at a huge price -- but what else are they going to do with their cash to re-establish relevance as the PC fades away and their Mobile initiatives have sputtered mightily (to date...)

Sure there would be pain, like any major pivot. But the pain of being forced to commoditize and give away Windows by Google Chrome and iOS and maybe someday Firefox Phone or Ubuntu will be greater -- it is pretty much happening as anyone with eyes can see.

To all those that say Windows revenue is untouchable: why did Windows 8 upgrade cost 1/5 of WIndows 7 upgrade? Was it because Microsoft wanted to make less money??? No, it was price pressure from Apple and Google (and some lesser degree Linux.)

The thing folks here are missing is that in the innovation cycle and product lifecycle, Windows is at deaths door. Selling operating systems is an EOL business model. Operating Systems are totally commoditized at this point.

Anyway my basic ideas are that if you consider the big picture of clinging to a shrinking userbase and sales models of the past -- MSFT would be smart to at least take the reigns of this shift and make a major pivot away from current business model.

In other words, to all that say "Windows is XX% of total revenue Yadda we can never change that math" -- I say this is probably what Steve Ballmer has been saying all along as the ship has been slowly sinking.

It will be 20% of revenue, then 10%, then 0% -- because that will be the trajectory of Windows market share.

With open source, you become the ultimate competitor on Price -- and you go for Market Share -- the very thing that Windows is going to inevitably lose here in time.

As for "is it even possible"?

To answer your thoughtful questions: First off, MSFT R&D and programmers would keep their jobs and would still develop windows, in other words, the same level of "quality" (debatable) you get in Retail windows would be there PLUS you'd get code review, patches, and feature enhancements from the community.

Community managers are well able to corral these types of changes into a commercial product just ask Jono Bacon over at Ubuntu (yo Jono) ... anyway... the open source OS is well traveled path by now, and MSFT has well more than enough resources (engineering/marketing) to do it. THat said, maybe there is a lot of bad code in there they don't want public?? Who knows. Too many nasty inline comments about Steve Jobs perhaps?

To sukuriant, these objections to open source software from non-open source developers are pretty long in the tooth -- in fact many companies make money by "giving away razors and selling the blades" -- open source business models are no different. But a company that is used to a huge monopolistic revenue stream and major margins on licensing revenue is simply not psychologically ready to grok this point.

An old non-tech saying that serves us well in this industry where copying and redistribution come at zero cost: "Give it away in order to Keep it."

-john