Could Windows go open source? It's a long shot, but Charles Babcock makes an interesting argument showing how open source will pull developers away from Microsoft. In a recent issue of InformationWeek, longtime IT reporter Charles Babcock discusses the dilemma Microsoft faces with open source in an article with the intriguing title “Why Windows Must Go Open Source.” But this isn’t a wisecrack from some long-haired OSCON panelist. It’s a well-constructed argument that explores a key area of Microsoft’s traditional focus: developers, developers, developers.But people are wrong when they assume that Microsoft will never move Windows down the open source path. To neutralize the advantages of Linux and other open source competitors, Microsoft will have to make Windows more like them. If it doesn’t, it risks losing the 6-million-plus developer base that’s made the Windows platform great. Microsoft may not want to open up Windows to the world, but it will. Indeed, it must.And in the current economic environment, open source is getting the nod from industry analysts like never before as a means to get more done with less budget. Not surprisingly, in the past six months, I’ve seen more and more CIOs adopt a “dual strategy,” whereby they continue to use proprietary software for existing legacy or mission-critical applications, while opting for open source for the bulk of their users and new Web-based applications. At the very least, open source gives organizations a negotiation lever against increasing license fees.Will enterprises take those (open source) offerings seriously? For the first time, the Burton Group is advising clients who ask how to save money in a recession to “envision a split scenario” in which they deploy Office on Windows for power users and Google Apps for others. “Such a split could significantly reduce licensing costs without seriously impacting productivity,” says Burton analyst Guy Creese…Microsoft will be spurred to (become more open source) by more and more defections of both its application customers and the third-party developers who surround Windows with much of its added value. In the long run, developer defections pose a greater strategic risk to Microsoft than the loss of revenue posed by a free Windows. Developers prefer open source because it gives them independence, flexibility, and lower cost.Babcock goes on to explore how netbooks, smartphones, and Linux-based PCs could erode Microsoft’s bottom line. And it’s not just the cost advantage of open source. It’s the flexibility and modularity that these systems provide developers. Open Source