Open just tastes better. We need to be open by default. We should NOT be trying to make close more palatable by sprinkling a little open sauce on it. We should focus on principle: open first, and then, if necessary, spike it sparingly and temporarily with a bit of closed, but keep the preponderance open to make sure you don't capitulate to the dark side (because, apparently, it's easier to do so).
I'm referring to things like the "Linux subsystem" for Windows - making a closed platform more palatable by adding some open to it, but in the process just entrenching the grip of closed on people. The better approach is to adopt Linux and then, if you absolutely must run nasty old Windows-only software (ask yourself why it's "Windows-only" and whether that's the *real* problem) do it with an emulation layer (WINE) or a VM (use virtualbox).
@sailor_andy heh heh. Well, MSFT has no love whatsoever for GPL licensed things or anything GNU in general, so I'm sure they'd quietly deprecate that usage at every opportunity. I am a strong proponent of copyleft, but don't think the "GNU/Linux" label is warranted (I've spoken to RMS about it, and we agree to differ on that particular issue, although we agree on just about everything else).
@codesections I think MSFT thinks it helps keep their platform relevant/palatable to people. They definitely recognise that many people have only practical concerns - principles of open (sadly) almost never feature. Linux is clearly better for anything script-related, and for remote SSH access to (nearly exclusively) Linux server infrastructure, so MSFT figured including that small amount of open functionality within in Windows would stem the flow of developers away from the Windows desktop...
@lightweight Yeah, I agree that that's what Microsoft thinks/hopes. I guess I hope that more and more people will get exposure to Linux/open software through the subsystem, realize how good it is, and make the transition to full-time Linux use. But maybe I'm naive