Slashdot Mirror
States Demand Windows Source Code
Zeb writes: "Looks like the states who are continuing the anti-trust case
don't believe MS' claim that they cannot provide a stripped down version of Windows. They want MS to release the source code so they can verify MS' claims . Maybe MS shot itself in the foot here?" The Register has a story as well.
I always wondered how useful the source code would be. At X million lines of code, plus the quality of comments and format might take an army of programmers a year to even figure out where to start.
If they did get it, could they afford the time and expense of analyzing it?
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
Did nt they claim that they shared their source code to groups that are willing to pay for it?
I'm just wondering out loud here.
In the past, it has been argued that even MS doesn't fully understand the code to Windows, so how will somebody who is just starting to look at this determine what is happening?
Even if it did exist, what would programmers say other than "yes, with enough hacking, we can separate this out"? I mean, with enough hacking, you can get OS/2 to emulate Windows, or Linux. And if Windows cannot be split up, it only means that it is not well-modularized (but you guessed that already).
Most of these problems come from the peculiar notion in the US legal system that a company must have done something wrong in order to be subject to monopoly restrictions. The simple fact is that dominance of the operating system market by any system, be it Windows, Linux, or whatever, is not good. We need a diversity of operating systems, and that's what remedies should be aimed at. Leave Microsoft's source code alone.
How long do you think before we can download a leaked copy on Morpheus?
I would like to address two points that will come up.
1)A good software engineer will know how to approach this kind of project, and will know how to start.
2)its ease will determine on MS's standards and adherence policy.
3)If they can get the source code(I doubt it, but I hope so), I'm sure they can get documentation.
And no, I can't imagine a beo...you know the rest.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Any sufficiently learned group of programmers will probably be either too expensive to hire for the job or bicker amongst themselves... you have to admit, most programmers are either biased for or against MS in the first place. All it takes is one arguement and poof...
well I would not think that. yes the programmers whould be a bit of a cost, but just becase they are Bias does not mean they are not proffecional and can not answer a simple question of "can it be done"
if one person says"no, IE can not be removed from the code" another can say "well yes it can, look hear is how I did it."
proof on concept is almost self evident in Programming since it is an applyed science, and not theory.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
No, microsoft would got a lot of money, due to the fact that the source code to windows is owned by them. Someone takes their code and makesa produt, that someone will have a court date.
Besides wouldn't the code analyzers be smacked with the same NDA's that colleges who got ahold of NT's source code were. Something like you can't develope an OS or develope system maintence software for windows for 5 years.
If I was a code developer that had the ability to understand operating systems (like windows) ... which I'm not ... would I really want to take the burden of examining this code?
And a stripped down version of windows impossible? Funny windows 1 - 95b managed to work just fine WITHOUT internet explorer. And NT was just fine until 4.0 came out. I mean what functionality does IE really bring to the Operating System. Not to mention XP, there's that stupid CD burning software, dvd player, windows media player, internet explorer, and funky skins. If you take that away from XP ... then you'll have Win2K :-).
IE integration is not neccessary to the OS itself. But I think that people really need to face the facts. If you don't like something ... do something about it. I'm not talking about suing ... I'm talking about not using it.
Let's get as many as I can remember here. BSD's, Linuxes, QNX, Be, AtheOS, Unicies (some are free now). And there are even non-free alternatives, MacOS, Solaris, Tru64, etc. If you don't like windows, stop complaining about how "virus prone", "crashy", and "crappy" it is, STOP USING IT.
Get yerself a CD-Burner and a high-speed connection and do yourself a favor, upgrade. And if you don't have the previous mentioned then find someone who does, it would take you probably all of 30 minutes to find one of your chaps that has the neccessary tools. Or get out of the house and off the phone with your lawyer, and go see your local UG (user group), perl mongers, BSD Users Groups, Linux UG's, Amiga Users, etc.
There are lots of resources out there, but you have to actually go find them. I don't think that you'll ever get a phone call "Hi this is Bill Gates, what can I do to make windows better for you?" , but if you do ... simply reply "Can you have an option to install Debian in the setup menu?"
Don't get me wrong, I dis-like MS, but what have they done wrong except make a complex math tool a cool toy that is useful? I don't see anyone suing MacOS for only running on powerpcs ... BeOS tried to get their foot in the door and linux runs on mac hardware. Is not an apple a monopoly in the mac world? Ohhh but wait, that's okay ...
"It said windows 98 or better, so I installed linux"
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
From TheRegister:
"The States also asked the judge to appoint a technical expert to provide "impartial opinions on the complex, technical issues" of the case. If she grants source access, we fear one of these may not be enough."
Just how, *how* are you going to find a geek that is impartial?
It's loads of fun to sit and think what terrible code microsoft must write, but you've got to be realistic. They are the largest software producer in the world. They hire smart programmers (bad designers, yes, but it's not like they have a bunch of skript kidz churning out SQL Server.) They have managers to make sure that the code is written properly. I'm not endorsing the end product or anything, but the code has got to look pretty good.
Now mod me down.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
Actually, were I a programmer asked to look at this stuff, I'd refuse; I'd be worried about Microsoft trying to sue me down the line for having seen their source code then written something. Kinda like why the Samba team refuses to look at any code Microsoft related.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Microsoft has made a number of assertions during the original trial and is sure to attempt to make a bunch of other assertions now.
All the States have to do (yeah, merely) is to look at one or two of the assertions and attempt to disprove them with the source code. At that point they can call the credibility of a particular witness into doubt and impeach their entire testimony.
Remember, the biggest complaint most of us have had is that MS has been making unsubstantiated claims about the technical merits and difficulties of certain actions. This way the States could go out and prove they're unsubstantiated.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Doesn't the existance of programs like 98lite prove that Windows can run without IE. Yes the mshtml.dll engine is left in there for programs that want to use it, but the browser itself can be purged. Why isn't this proof enough?
Overrated / Underrated : Moderation
It should be obvious to everyone that trully removing IE from windows would break it!
The problem with referring to Microsoft's operating system as simply "Windows" means that we mesh together the kernel and the user interface into one generic term. Would removing IE break the kernel? Of course not. UI code such as browsers does not live in the kernel. But would it break the Windows user interface? Yes.
IE is tightly integrated into the UI. Click "My Computer", "My Documens", or open the File "Explorer" and what pops up? Why it's IE! Not, chance that url at the top that say "My Computer" to http://slashdot.org and now you're browsing Slashdot with Internet Explorer.
It would be impossible to remove IE without breaking the user interface. And why should they remove it? It's their user interface. The same thing holds true in the KDE world. You browse your home directory guess what you're using? Konqueror! The same web browser that comes packaged with the desktop. Similar? I think so.
The point is, I hate MS probably more than most people, but should we care that IE is tightly integrated? I think it's to the user's benefit that it is. Now whether or not Microsoft should allow the user to entirely disable IE's internet exploring abilities is another question. If I make Mozilla my default browser and I click on a link in my email, Windows will open up Mozilla. However, if I type a link into "My Computer" explorer, it just opens the link in that window (ala IE). Maybe the behavior should be to pop open Mozilla?
Anyway, like them or not, Microsoft destructive monopoly. But should packaging a tightly integrated web browser with the user interface illegal? I think not.
"Ok, here is the source code you requested."
"Thank you for complying." *scan* "Where are the whitespace and comments."
"Oh, this is our stripped down version." *two weeks later*
"This will not compile. You must have messed it up when you stripped it down."
"Oh, I must have forgotten to give you this header file. Yah, you need this one."
"Ok, thank you for complying." *two weeks later*
"No, it still won't compile. Are you sure you gave us everything this time?" *two months later, 7 "missed" files later*
"I'm afraid this really is outside the scope of our license. If you need help compiling, please call our technical support center."
best web host ever
Why would they bother? The BSD license is entirely free, unlike the GPL.
But the copyright notices still need to be there.
But I doubt there's much BSD licensed code inside Windows anyway...
Actually the urban legend states that the entire TCP/IP stack in Windows is based on the BSD stack.
So if the rumors are true, and its is based on the BSD, then Microsoft would need to make sure that all the copyright notices were not removed. Otherwise, we're talking lawsuit city (as well as a PR shitstorm).
Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
I removed emacs and all libraries it used and suddenly my entire system stopped working. After some testing, I discovered that if I left the libc library around, removing of the remainder of emacs did not cause the entire system to become unusable.
Libraries used by an application are not the application. This is the root of the debate. Microsoft has defined IE to include libraries used by other programs, and other people have a more limited definition.
I could define IE to include the entire Windows operating system as part of it. I do not consider that a valid definition, as there are very few computers with Windows installed for the express single purpose of using IE. As soon as the HTML engine was being used by other applications than IE, it was no longer part of the IE application.
Are they going to be giving them the code for 95, 98, 98SE, XP, 2k? what? I mean if they gave them the code for 98SE they would find that no, you can't provide a stripped down version of windows because well, everything is so twisted up and tied together. If they gave them the code for 2000 they would find that the only thing preventing a stripped down version are lines of code like
if( explorer != installed){
stop.working(now);
}
remove those and you got tiny 2k.
Also, doesn't the mere existance of windows CE already prove that there can be a stripped down version of windows? Hello?
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
We return back to this same issue - the tying of the browser to the OS. However, it seems like the real question is never asked, and an answer is never forthcoming...
Even if it is proven that the browser could be separate, that does nothing to bring Netscape, the company (rather than the AOL subsidiary or whatever they are now), back. It does not help any stock valuing, it doesn't help investors - Netscape - the company - is dead.
Yet we don't hear from the states - the last hope (maybe) to get this settled honestly and justly - that Microsoft has been found to be guilty of using its monopoly powers illegally, to force another company out of business. They VIOLATED ANTI-TRUST MEASURES! It wouldn't have mattered if the browser was part of the OS, if it was separate and installed with it, or if it was given away free on a CD in every box of Cherrios on the store shelves. The fact that they dropped the price to zero and gave it away, plus using thier advantage in the OS market to sway people into using it (by either installing it with the OS or tying it in someway), in order to undermine a competitor in an "unrelated" software product (Netscape and the browser business) at the time - this is illegal under the Anti-Trust laws.
This lawsuit is not about today - it is about what happened so many years ago. Today, it seems pretty obvious that a browsable UI and OS seem like a good solution (or at least "a" solution). Back then, though, they were nearly two separate pieces of software. But today, the states seem to be treating this lawsuit as if it were about the present situation in software - when that isn't the case, nor should it be.
I want Microsoft to be punished for its actions against Netscape and against the consumer - for these actions removed a choice from the consumer - a choice to spend or not spend their money (ie, buy Netscape for $$$), as well as causing what may have been the premature "death" of a company (of course, this is only one aspect of the entire lawsuit - the whole thing with licensing restrictions on OEMs to prevent them from selling or installing onto systems other OSs, etc - locking in a OS monopoly on hardware OEMs - more anti-trust issues)...
I want an full answer on that - why aren't we (as citizens and consumers) getting that answer?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Seriously, folks. I hate microsoft as much as the next guy, but this is getting out of hand. The government demanding a private company's source code? Is that the kind of world we want?
Everyone seems blinded by the fact that this time it's microsoft who happens to be the victim. Doesn't anyone see that next time it might be the good guys getting fucked by the government?
__
Choose mnemonic identifiers. If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem. - Larry Wall
Interesting. I've always suspected an open Internet, as it truly is for now more or less, would be the greatest benefit to all. A virtual democracy. But the minute you use networks to exchange money, this goes out the windows. So to speak. This is why I believe a .NET setup isn't in the interests of that democratic Internet many dream about. Hey, .NET is great if you WANT a $ network. What about connecting to the Internet itself?
.NET one, a Unix/Internet one, and some others (the Sun network, the Sony one, etc.)? What if, since you pay all your money to be on one network, you can't connect to another $ network?
;p
But why does that mean I have to use only Microsoft servers, workstations, software, standards, etc. to connect to this $ network? Isn't this a monopoly?
I think people need to define what sort of network they want, where they want it, and whether everyone should be allowed to play.
Do you prefer a world with an AOL Network, then a
Ok wow, OT or what? MOD down!
Did you actually read the article?
microsoft is saying that X is technically no feasable well do you expect evrybody just belive them without any verification?
Of course, but in the near term, we won't be able to get past the use of this virual democracy by less than honest people to exploit those less fortunate or more trusting. It's the nature of individuals, and unfortunately, monopolies. If Microsoft didn't see a broader world where they owned the architecture, connecting clients, and all of your traffic data, why would they go through the trouble of pushing the .NET standard? They wouldn't of course. And consider what PRIVACY might mean in that future. Your surfing patters, like it or not, can be collected in an aggregate for and sliced and diced however they please.
Scary? You bet.
--
This is no different than health inspectors demanding to see the conditions of a food-packaging facility.
Would you want the government to take the word of the people that run the meat-packing plant that everything inside is clean and tidy, or do you want inspectors going inside and looking for themselves?
Microsoft set themselves up by claiming that they can't strip out that code but then refuses to allow the government to review that code.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
We don't want or need the MS source code. As a matter of fact, we're better off without it, because anyone who looks at it becomes questionable as a programmer, because of 'copyright contamination.'
We need file formats, wire formats, protocols. If Microsoft doesn't have clear, concise documentation, if Microsoft considers 'the source IS the documentation' for this stuff, then *THAT* is part of the problem with computing today.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
how is this different from, say, demanding the plans to the Ford Explorer to verify Ford's claims that it was the fault of the Firestone tires for all the rollovers?
-rp
"Among the illegal tactics cited by the court was the "commingling" of Windows source code with add-on middleware.
I fail to see how stripping out add-on middleware from Windows will benefit the consumer in the end.
Currently the home OS ships for $100 and comes with a good browser, decent/basic archiver, basic CD burner and a bunch of other utilities that are "good enough" for 90% of the users. Is this unfair to other vendors that make more robust version of these utilities commercially? Perhaps...
However, consider the impact on the consumer if these add-ons were removed from the OS? Now, on top of the OS license cost, the user must purchase a CD burner ($50), a browser($30), an archiver($30 for Winzip), an FTP client($40 CuteFTP c4.2), etc etc etc.
Suddenly the TCO of the system is going up at a prohibitive rate. Software isn't cheap, if you actually bother to license everything you use at home. Do we expect users, who don't bother now to research alternative options to Windows software, to make rational, cost-effective decisions about purchasing add-ons for their OS? Or do we expect middleware vendors to drop their prices once the competition ball is in their court? I don't see how the consumer's wallet will benefit from all this litigation in the end.
This is a little different legal situation, though - Microsoft has based its defense on the source code. As a loyal viewer of Law & Order, this then leads to the "Well, they raised the issue, Your Honor, so I can follow it up" situation. Microsoft can't be permitted to make a defense based on secret evidence that only they can see.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Actually, I want a private oversight corporation to be set up, similar to the Underwriter's Laboratory.
Their seal can then appear on food packages where the facilities are properly inspected.
If I choose to buy the food without the seal on the package, it is my choice.
It's one thing with code, and one could argue that even code should be better documented. Then we can get into commenting and documentation extractors, but that's not the point.
It's an entirely different thing with file formats, protocols, and the like. Microsoft tries to call these things Standards. In order to truly be a standard, something has to exist apart from its implementation. It's OK to have a reference implementation, but that's a supplement to documentation, not a replacement for documentation. Plus a live program implementing a standard is a completely different thing than a reference implementation.
Standards are supposed to have a life beyond any single given implementation - that's why it's called a Standard. Otherwise, every version might well be incompatible with the one before in subtle ways. This is also a good reason for Standards to be simple and clear.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I would imagine that microsoft the turkey in this equation is filled with a similar amount of bugs and may make those poor reviewers equally ill.
I got my entire grocery bill reimbursed and a 200 dollar gift certificate. I wish microsoft would do the same for all the poor suckers out there that lost data, time, and resources to them.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
What you describe is seizure, and it's completely inappropriate in a civil matter.
I am confused. Clarify for me: Was Microsoft found guilty or liable in the Antitrust Case. I thought they were found guilty, and that it was indeed actually a criminal violation.
C//
COnsidering that they have done everything except drop support for the old oses, they are doing pretty good. The only OS they sell in the store is XP and xp is much more compatable with programs written for WinNT (any version) then 95/98/ME was. They are slowly getting windows back to one platform. After the splits they created when they switched from win16 -> win32 (95 version) -> win32 (nt version) finally you should be able to write a program and have it work on Win2000, and WinXP and whatever next without having OS specific hooks and code paths.
if we let them arrest criminals, next they'll start arresting the rest of us. "First they came for the criminals, and I said nothing, because I wasn't a criminal..."
Come on. Microsoft is evil. Show them no mercy.
The problem with this argument should be fairly obvious, though.
The main problem is the fact that they're not providing you with a browser: they're providing you with a browser that's impossible to remove. And people who claim that "well, it's nice to be able to enter stuff in the go window" are missing the point - There's NO reason that MS couldn't have made the OS able to accept a browser of any type as a file manager, provided it met some specifications (see GNOME's WM spec). Or use a different HTML renderer. But, no, they were scared of Netscape, and so they bundled IE in with Windows.
Think I'm crazy? What about this - what if Windows didn't allow you to change the default "Open" program for filetypes? How is this any different than what's going on now? The point is NOT that MS bundled these programs - look at Linux, for instance. If RedHat started bundling commercial programs with Linux, great - but the OS allows you to remove them.
So, I'm not saying "strip out the middleware". What I'm saying is "strip out the integration of the middleware into the OS" or "make the middleware removable". If MSN was set up in Windows to be the ONLY ISP, and any other ISP didn't have nearly the flexibility that MSN had under Windows (for no good reason other than Microsoft won't tell anyone what the APIs that MSN uses are), would that be fair? What the states and everyone else is saying is add everything you want, but DON'T BREAK THE LAW. MS has a monopoly. If you have a monopoly, you can't go around acting as if you don't - you have to act differently. Basically, you have to be very "nice" with your monopoly - not use it to bully around people or increase your business.
That's kindof what the antitrust laws are for. They acknowledge that monopolies sometimes occur, but that when they do, the company needs to somehow maintain the air of a competitive environment.
Microsoft distributes Internet Explorer separately from Windows (e.g., for the Mac). Therefore, it is not an inseparable part of Windows. QED.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
Internet Explorer is a superior browser to anything out there.
Why are people making such a fuss over IE being part of Windows, or any other "features" for that matter? Why isn't anyone going after Apple for releasing/distributing so many tools (iPhoto, iMovie, iCrap, whatever) for their OS?
Also, IE and Explorer are basically intergrated code. You could remove IE's icon from the desktop, and make it so no URL's could be entered into the location bar.. but I guess that isn't "uninstalled" enough for some people?
Besides, no one's forcing you to use Internet Explorer. If you don't like it, install Netscape or Oscar or whatever the hell you want. Sheesh.
Not All Who Wander Are Lost
1) Do you really think that windows includes "bad" code in their compiled OS and associated files? Be honest... it's not too hard to take ANY program apart to it's base elements and look through it. In addition, many universities and technical institutions have the code already and have analyzed it a dozen times over... don't you think that it would have leaked out by now that MS included bad code or code to purposely break other programs?
2) Oh, do you really think MS churns badly coded software? I mean, is it written badly? You (coders) may not agree with certain forms and styles used, but I doubt seriously if you can fault how it is put together, notated, and otherwise written. I am willing to bet, given that MS hires some pretty good people (often the best) tha the codebase is tight as hell.
It's not the codebase, but rather the design descisions and attempts at full compatibility that cause problems. For instance, it has to support Direct X, D3D Sound, OpenGL, EAX, A3D 1/2, and a plethora of other API's to get just games to work (along with the core programming language sna DLL's from the software itself). I don't think anyone in the linux community can point to a 100% successful attempt at this yet (not even close) nor can they say that ANY flavor of *nix never crashes or bombs out... it simply would be a false statement.
3) On Netscape - Spare us. I certainly agree that MS aggresively marketed and "sold" their free browser. However, their OS is their OS and they have the RIGHT under law to bundle it in. They also have the right to sell it for free and introduce what they feel should be the standards we web folks design to.
MS only screwed up in their licensing to OEM PC manufacturers by forcing them, amoung other items that are definately in the anti-trust category, to not also include Netscape. This is Nutscraps only leg to stand on, and a valid one to boot. Since IE was offered for free, and Netscape could install and run on any MS consumer and corporate OS freely and without restriction, what kind of monitary descision do you think Netscape will get in a court. Nothing that MS can't pay, especially since they didn't charge persay for IE.
While on the topic... with the exception of V3, early builds of 4, and the latest 6.1 versions of Nutscrap, was there even a reason to use it? It was slower than IE4+, and from IE5+ it was not as feature complete or as standards compliant. Netscape shot themselves in the foot with the massively bugged out release 6 of their browser which took them nearly 9 months to fix as well. IE on the other hand isn't perfect and certain "standards" were not as tightly followed or supported as should have been, but in comparison it was a better choice.
4)How many lines of code are in Windows XP (which is what we are talking about here, not 95/98/ME/2000)? I have heard that it is as high as 37 million lines of code comprising the whole OS. That is alot of code... who is going to go through it (with or without comments by programmers) and determine if MS is a liar about stripping out IE from XP. And who do you believe when it is refuted by MS experts... it becomes a very long, endless cycle that results in no descision ever being made.
A great deal of you here think that MS is evil. Well, in one very specific set of circumstances I guess this is true. They are a company that succeeded and dominated an industry (they still do and will for many years to come no matter the outcome of the case), but they let it go to their heads and they got greedy. Who can blame them... it is not all just Mr. Gates and company, but the whole company, especially the first generation of employees who profited massively and got rich when MS took off.
ALL companies lobby in washington. ALL companies seek to make their product the most popular. ALL companies seek to become a dominate and driving force in their industry segment. It's called business.
The issue is not against one specific company. The issue is MS's aggressive and seemingly illegal licensing aggreements with OEMs in the PC manufacturing area. They sought to contain the ingress into their market segments by other companies by forcing OEMs to only load their OS "as is" because they could due to their industry leading position.
A secondary issue may very well be that once MS achieved such a leading and dominate role that so effects the whole PC industry and not just their segment(s), they took advantage and forced their coporate image and products through OS integration and bundling, displacing competitors by limiting their potential exposure... however, the flip side is that the MS operating systems are their operating systems and they should be able to sell it how they want.
I think personally that they should not be allowed exclusivity in their future license deals anywhere in the US, and pay a hefty (say 1 - 2 billion) dollars to the government in settlement. The settlement will be split up evenly between companies that can prove they were hurt by MS licensing to OEMs and to public education to improve the exposure of students to valuable and important technologies and software (all OSs and programs). In addition MS should be split into three divisions... the OS, Internet, and Software (productivity, education, and entertainment) divisions.
I don't think that they should disclose any codebase, nor should they be forced to unlink their browser and other bundled apps from current OSs. Future OSs shouls have less integration, with clear and easy menu's that during the install process allow you to choose what is and isn't installed. There should no longer be consumer OEM versions by hardware manufacturers as well, but there can be a corporate version. I also don't find fault in MS having enhanced copyright protections built in.
The story fails to mention what for what OS the source has been demanded. Reading the other comments here at Slashdot leads me to believe that most of you assume that they will release the source for Windows 3.1, and hand it over with an unconcealed snicker on their sneaky, rich faces. The rest of you, evidently, assume that they will have to turn over the code for Windows 2000, or even XP (note the comment someone had which placed the kernel32.dll in the \winnt\system32 folder). This is definitely not the case. From the beginning of this case, Microsoft has been very careful to keep their NT codebase off-limits from investigation. The entire argument that is, and has always been, going on is based entirely on Windows 98. I don't know how many people still use Windows 98, but it is a satisfyingly small number, and you can't even get a new computer with 98 still installed.
If I were Microsoft, I would agree to releasing the source code, because the most advanced OS the judge can force MS to hand over is Windows 98SE, which is years out of date.
Microsoft succeeded in this case, because they have completely moved away from the codebase the argument is based on, which they were planning to do anyway, and no judge can legally demand that MS release any code that came from the NT codebase. It is 9x at best, which is completely useless to everyone.
Best case scenario: the states prove that it is possible to remove Internet Explorer from Windows 98 (the code given them), without wrecking the OS. Judge says: "See, Bill? Change it." Bill G. replies: "Oh, I see how it's done now! Okay, I'll change it." So he goes back to Redmond and removes IE from 98, and they give that back at the deadline, which will of course be too much time (MS obviously already knows how to do it). The judge sees it and approves, and forces Microsoft to sell that version of Windows to the public as a watered-down version of Windows. Microsoft submits, and releases Windows 98 Light to the public, which is basically Windows 98 without anything good attached to it. When no copies sell, MS shrugs and says: "See, no one wants a dumbed down version of Windows," but the states say "Wait a second, that's the old version, of course nobody's buying it! I'm suing them for XP!!!" But the judge agrees with Microsoft that the NT/2K/XP codebase was never part of the argument, so the litigation must start all over again.
We go through a few years worth of court cases again, while MS fervently works out a whole new codebase. When the states finally get them to release the NT code, they release the code to XP Home Edition at the same time as they release their newest OS, based on a completely new codebase.
Repeat as necessary, ad nauseam, to infinity, et cetera.
Microsoft cannot lose in court, in fact they may have already won. If you want to beat them, you need to release a product that goes faster, crashes less, and has complete binary compatibility with Windows, or else the mass public will not make the switch. And if you had these features, why would the public switch, if they are only buying another Windows?
Thus, Microsoft wins. They can do nothing but win. Sorry, fellas.
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
Courts frown on such tricks and trying them would get them slapped with contempt of court. They aren't totally stupid, you know.
If you know what you are doing, you can run W2K server WITOUT IE, You need to make a special OEM cd using their toolkit, and you can even do other fun things like put InetPub AND IIS on a sperate partition, under users that have no access to the rest of the partiotions , hence the OS. NSA has some good info on the latter.
:)
The courts are compltley ignorant on this matter, so are their 'expets' for the most part. Windwows will run fine without IE, at least, 95, NT 4.0 and W2K , SP is 2k on steroids with eye candy, The OEM install kit(XP) has a network ready bootable CD image that wii RUN ANY(IE included, Abobe, you name it), Windows app under it you want this should be PROOF alone. It starts as only a background and a shell window, you can run anything else from it you want executing it from the command line, Beauty is it will handle Win32 AND NTFS partitions, makes a wicked hack tool for a dead or funked machine, or to change the SAM around
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
Fisrst of all, IE isnt an intrical part of windows and can be removed by for example win98lite. http://www.98lite.net/ieradicator.html I cant imagine paint, the media player or movie maker having any seriuos IO tasks either. Microsoft tried to claim that it was impossible to remove IE and it was done under the trial by an expert witness. They still clame its impossible? The source code would reveal this both by how the apis was communicating and by the source. Other strange things hidden in the source would probably pop up aswell. Atleast it would either expose som serious anticompetitive practices or put an end to speculation. I vote for the first considering how they fight to keep the source hidden. One also wonders, how much is real code and how much is landfill? All those easter eggs has to be stored somewhere on the HD?
HTTP/1.1 400
You can try and generalize things over and try to not make exceptions anywhere, but you gotta face the facts: MS isn't just any old company anymore. Ask the average Joe Schmoe what sort of hardware they have in their box and they'll respond "Windows".
MS has involved themselves in so many people's lives so deeply that they deserve seperate treatment, mostly resulting from the monopoly they've achieved. All of the arguments about them "just being another company" don't fit anymore and they deserve seperate treatment accordingly. It doesn't matter that other people will argue that you can't punish them for just doing well in their market because they are approaching levels of influence in people's lives that only the government has had in the past.
I personally wouldn't even mind seeing seperate committees being designated to oversee MS operations internally. These people would serve as a check on MS in the same way that they are checks in congress, the military, public services, and every other section of the government - because these areas, sections, or whatnot have a large influence on people's lives, so the people need some control over the influences (although here you can easily argue that the government doesn't correctly represent the people, and I would agree with that partly, but that's a whole other discussion). The only problem I would see here is that I wouldn't want the government taking over enough control to stifle growth and development - that would be completely counterproductive to most anyone's goals.
MS and their Windows OS line have been turned into a public service, and they need to be treated accordingly - just as every other public service is.