undefined | Better HN

0 pointsschaefer9y ago0 comments

Oh really?

I don't care for the way the my Microsoft Windows computer changes focus between windows. I'm sure a quick change to DWM.exe (Desktop Window Manager) would make me much happier as a user. I'll even do the work myself.

Can you tell me where I can go grab the latest source code for DWM, so I can make those changes?

I don't think it's possible for a home user. And I think it's important. (If I'm wrong, I'd love to be corrected.)

0 comments

8 comments · 2 top-level

ksk9y ago· 6 in thread

Can you point to all the things you have modified in programs where you do have source access?

I don't find the argument that users will go around making changes and testing them on OS level code to be a credible reason for open-sourcing anything. If you want to say, that having the code helps in other ways for development, or debugging then sure..

schaeferOP9y ago

I will not provide an exhaustive list, but I will give a single example.

I also wish I had the source code to the controller software to a large motorized rock climbing wall that was produced back in 2002. The "Assent fun rock".

Alas, I don't. So... I've reverse engineered the protocol between the device and the native computer controller and implemented my own controller stack from the ground up on linux.

Why? because I wanted to add an algorithm that lets the speed of the device respond to the reading on my heart rate monitor.

Here's a photo of me on the thing, courtesy of my friend. https://www.instagram.com/p/48WVcbkT6x/

reitanqild9y ago

>> Can you point to all the things you have modified in programs where you do have source access?

Good question. Just ask it respectfully because..

> Alas, I don't. So... I've reverse engineered the protocol between the device and the native computer controller and implemented my own controller stack from the ground up on linux.

... it gets better everytime it actually is a hacker on the other end.

Have my upvote!

1 more reply

ksk9y ago

I think that example blurs the lines between open source, and adding functionality to a piece of hardware, and having an open data protocol. People are not purchasing the hardware and software without integration. This is less about open source, and more in the hardware hacking category. Otherwise, since every piece of modern electronics has some kind of firmware/microcontroller in them, that would make anything at all to do with them, about 'open source'.

I think its fair to say you obviously understood the spirit of my question since the context was open source operating systems. So, let me ask again, what have you changed about the OS at a system level?

1 more reply

qplex9y ago

Oh, don't worry. It's quite credible.

"Users" empowered by the source code do not just simply make changes, they write complete replacements for parts of the system.

For example:

On an open system you have plenty of choice in WMs (all written by the "users").

On Windows you are stuck with DWM.exe.

ksk9y ago

You're conflating modular design, open communication protocols, and open source operating systems.

1 more reply

duck29y ago

I think there are dwm.exe replacements for Windows. See bblean[0].

[0]: http://bb4win.sourceforge.net/bblean/

1 more reply

artimaeis9y ago

DWM.exe is not a part of .NET, it's part of Windows. The .NET team has been making strives towards open source, but the Windows team has not.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

8 comments · 2 top-level

ksk9y ago· 6 in thread

Can you point to all the things you have modified in programs where you do have source access?

schaeferOP9y ago

I will not provide an exhaustive list, but I will give a single example.

I also wish I had the source code to the controller software to a large motorized rock climbing wall that was produced back in 2002. The "Assent fun rock".

Alas, I don't. So... I've reverse engineered the protocol between the device and the native computer controller and implemented my own controller stack from the ground up on linux.

Why? because I wanted to add an algorithm that lets the speed of the device respond to the reading on my heart rate monitor.

Here's a photo of me on the thing, courtesy of my friend. https://www.instagram.com/p/48WVcbkT6x/

reitanqild9y ago

>> Can you point to all the things you have modified in programs where you do have source access?

Good question. Just ask it respectfully because..

> Alas, I don't. So... I've reverse engineered the protocol between the device and the native computer controller and implemented my own controller stack from the ground up on linux.

... it gets better everytime it actually is a hacker on the other end.

Have my upvote!

1 more reply

ksk9y ago

1 more reply

qplex9y ago

Oh, don't worry. It's quite credible.

"Users" empowered by the source code do not just simply make changes, they write complete replacements for parts of the system.

For example:

On an open system you have plenty of choice in WMs (all written by the "users").

On Windows you are stuck with DWM.exe.

ksk9y ago

You're conflating modular design, open communication protocols, and open source operating systems.

1 more reply

duck29y ago

I think there are dwm.exe replacements for Windows. See bblean[0].

[0]: http://bb4win.sourceforge.net/bblean/

1 more reply

artimaeis9y ago

DWM.exe is not a part of .NET, it's part of Windows. The .NET team has been making strives towards open source, but the Windows team has not.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse