Slashdot Mirror
Professor Testifies Windows Is Modular, Separable
circlejtp writes: "Princeton University professor Andrew Appel said in written testimony that modular design is an accepted standard in the industry, and Microsoft has already created a version of Windows for interactive television boxes that has removable functions. The full story can be found on the Tacoma Tribune website." At issue is Microsoft's claim that separating Windows' components would cripple the OS.
The only thing it would cripple is their business model. So in a sense they aren't lying.
In any other industry, modularity and flexibility are considered desirable properties. Only in Microsofts ass-backwards world do they run round denying these things...
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
..what all of us already knows, Windows excist from componts, so that they can be seperated from each other... DUH, fortunally for us now all those lawyers knows it (or ar they going to do some own researching too?).
If at first you don't succeed, then sky diving definitely isn't for you.
What do they mean, Windows would be crippled? ;-)
Cheers,
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
and besides, arguing that because something is an "industry practice" it means M$ is doing it seems a really weak agruement
-jon
So the Company is monolithic...
But the OS is modular ??
Wont the justice department and the Open Source wish it were the other way around...
Justice dept could easily break up the modular MS easily then..
And Monolithic OS would die a slow death as we wait for something better on the desktop..
Rapid Nirvana
the question is, are the courts actually gonna listen to this? and if so, will the previous decision be overruled?
Microsoft's claim that separating Windows' components would cripple the OS.
You Mean it is not Crippled now?
Oh! I thought the issue here was that the OS was crippled because it was MADE with Microsoft components.
Well as they say, "learn something new every day"... guess I can go back to sleep!
"The scientist describes what is; The engineer creates what never was." - Theodore von Karman
Here is proof.
... that when I see this story posted I notice the Microsoft Visual Studio .NET banner ad on the /. front page? I don't know how long it's been running but today is the first I noticed it.
Apparently our hypocrisy knows no bounds.
"More organs means more human." - Zim
The Maxtor Windows-Based NAS boxes.
Or am I to assume they all contain a web browser, etc ?
maybe someone will figure out how to uninstall the BSOD program... it tends to run randomly and always seems to crash my computer.
Nosce te Ipsum
My question is, why isn't anyone complaining about bundling in the case of Mac OS X? Yes, I know, Apple isn't trying to tie a web browser in as part of the underlying OS. But still, they include things like iPhoto and iMovie. Aren't these considered "middleware"? Why isn't anyone complaining about that?
<Conspiracy Class="M$" Believability=0>
That's right, Cmdr. Taco has ensured that, from now on, .NET banner ads would run with every MS story. With all the positive press Microsoft already receives from /., this targeted advertising is sure to draw wheelbarrows of money from click-throughs.
Or not. Hey, someone make sure there're no nanoprobes in Taco's bloodstream. . .
</Conspiracy>
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
I assure you, this isn't flamebait, although some may preceive it as such.
What, exactly, is the difference between the integration of Windows and IE vs the integration of KE and Konqueror?
Now that there's some science brass disputing the claims of a M$'s lawyers, maybe the judge will stiffen the penalty.
If only "Add/Remove Programs" would allow me to DELETE Internet Explorer as opposed to only UPDATING Internet Explorer.
The only thing crippled here is the OS's interface. They've deliberately removed function from the user's perspective... I'm sure its possible to delete IE. And I'm sure its possible to automate it without deleting any otherwise necessary files. They just don't LET you.
I can't believe there has even been a DEBATE about MS being a monopoly or using their market share to influence and dominate not one industry (software) but THREE (also hardware and the internet-related stuff).
it is starting to look like MS will have to break it apart. but, just because they have to distribute a version without all this stuff, what is to stop them from having another folder on the CD with all the middleware in it. i can see the message now "you can not view your help files unless you have internet explorer installed. insert your install cd and click next to install it." does anyone remember the !Plus pack?
*** I suffer from a colorful array of psychological problems
So what else is new. People can come out and say this all they want, but until a Sun, IBM, or HP step up and state the fact of what Microsoft is doing it will be disregarded.
Or what we need is a non-UNIX competitor to show that Microsoft XP to ... umm .. wait .. I said non-UNIX competitor ... nevermind.
-- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
Not that I don't believe this guy, but what makes him an expert on Windows modularity other than being a computer science professor?
That may be true, but it still could be argued that a consumer version would do the damage they say it would. The version for tv boxes is a closed/controled system that consumers don't mess with, so you could say that it wouldn't generate the support calls.
That is, if you buy the argument at all, which I think is poppycock. In windows since 95 (I can't remember about 3.1) you can remove certain parts of windows. Don't want minesweeper, disable it. It acutally takes it off your system, not just removes the icon from the start menu. I think it has been well proven that you can do the same for IE, or the CD writer software with XP, or Windows media player.
I do, however think that they need to keep windows messenger from being removable (in XP), I mean, that improves connectivity and system performance, right? not!
room101 -- how much can you stand before they break you?
(they always break you eventually)
It's not like there is one big program called "Windows" running your computer. There are many programs like Explorer.exe, taskman.exe, systray.exe, mplayer2.exe, messenger, kernel32, the scheduler, iexplore.exe, ...
... really you don't want me to do that) That way, I can use my own browser and shell, WITHOUT any of Microsoft contiunual nuicenses and usually with performance gain (like speed). Cygwin is kind of nice to run with windows, but I don't run windows anymore, so I guess this is the end of this topic!!
SURE, the DLL's are common among almost all the programs, but I know you can break down the system into components (or programs?) and shell integration (that is, registry entries) and remove, for example, the Internet Explorer integration from the shell, so it is like it is not there anymore.
I know this because I've built a windows 95 b system, component by component (without going into details
OH BTW that prof picked a good target.
For the end goal (that is, no bundling) to be achieved, Microsoft can simply remove the Internet Explorer icon (and maybe iexplore.exe) from the desktop, right? I mean, sure, there are a few small other places it's integrated (explorer.exe will start internet explorer if I navigate to a URL rather than a folder), but they wouldn't actually have to remove anything but the code that starts the browser and the justice department would be pretty happy (i.e. not be able to tell the difference). I suppose this would make the IE download awfully small, too...
As much as they might want to complain about wanting to remove Microsoft's components, the fact of the matter is that there simply aren't competing products that work as well as Microsoft's products. (Note: I'm not talking about Office or anything like that...I'm talking about components that come with Windows).
Take IE. It used to be a pretty lousy program, but anyone who says that IE 6 isn't a good program (with the exception of some security issues) is delusional. I have yet to see a comparable program for the Windows platform that can do things as fast and as well as IE can. Even if someone didn't want to use it, there's nothing stopping them from using a different browser. I used Netscape and Mozilla along side IE for years without problems. The simple fact of the matter is that Netscape lost the Windows browser war because it failed to stay up to date. It crashed. It didn't support as many standards as IE did. It was slower. Also, think about this: as we see more and more online storage services, ftp repositories, etc. popping up on the Internet, is it not logical that one would ususally want to browse through these remote sites, as well as Intranets in the same way they browse through their local computer? It only makes sense that eventually the Internet would have to become seamlessly integrated with the OS. And when push came to shove, IE won out because it was just better.
Take Windows Media Player. Tell me, what program is better? Real is full of ads, Quicktime isn't free, and Winamp is only good for audio. Again, the exact same situation applies. WMP is simply the better program in most cases. And, of course, there's NOTHING stopping consumers from installing 3rd party software if they so choose.
Short of driving down prices on Windows, I fail to see how requiring them to strip it down will be of benefit to consumers. It'll just mean more hassle - you've got to search for and download all those things by yourself. And the average newbie can't do that. Look, allowing OEMs to include alternate programs and changing the desktop to have the icons point to those by defalt is one thing, but requiring Windows to be stripped down to a point where it would actually have LESS capabilities than competing OSs won't solve anything. What WILL make a difference is more closely monitoring Microsoft's buisness practices, and maybe making select parts of their code open source. This is to the point where I think some of these states are just on a rampage, blowing the problem out of proportion and failing to understand the real issues at stake.
-James
This sort of reminds me of creationist mindset. Microsoft has Windows CE, which was supposed to be a "consumer level realtime operating system". Which doesn't mean it has anything to do with an RTS. You can have those things running in 2kB of ram with interrupt support and everything.
That's just marketoidspeak for stripped down version you can stick into an ATM or something. At the same time, stripping down XP middleware will cripple windows. Okay, removing all that middleware would create _business opportunities_ to 3rd parties. Which might indeed cripple windows as we know it.
I didn't wait for something better. I'm using something better right now.
I don't see it as hypocrisy. I see it as accepting money from an advertiser. If MS thinks they're going to sway /. readers using banner ads, they are just making massive donations to /.
/. was changing their editorial opinions or running pro-MS stories over pro-Linux stories, then that would be bad. Taking money for ineffective advertising is perfectly moral.
I have no problem with that. I
Well, if you expnad this thought, it's kinda hard to separate KDE from Konqueror right now. It's both the file manager and the browser. Yes, you can use Mozilla, but the same thing is and was true for Windows.
I understand that neither Apple nor KDE are in a monopoly position nor they are trying to enforce that, but my point is that adding applications to the OS is not 'bad'. The 'bad' thing Microsoft did was closing their API!
quake74
I think this says it all. We shouldn't fear that Microsoft is a monopoly - we should be afraid that Microsoft is looking to extend that monopoly into areas other than just software - they want to control everything digital.
What Microsoft would like to do is make it impossible for companies who don't purchase their software to do e-commerce. By retaining control of the browser market, they can effectively do this. It is a very simple matter for a browser to detect which server software is running on a server, and Microsoft could easily put hooks in IE which prevented from loading pages from a non-IIS server. Companies that had previously been UNIX-based would then be required to buy PC servers (running IIS, of course) in order to sell to PC users. Or worse, Microsoft could start up its own web-services division, and require that all IE-enabled e-commerce come through them.
What I find most interesting is that they have been able to extend their monopoly position because their earnings enable them to effectively thwart the judicial process. They can drag the antitrust trial out for so long that any remedy taken would be ineffective.
A more effective remedy against Microsoft would be for the government to fund OS development, and place the software produced in the public domain. If there was a free alternative to Windows (which didn't require learning UNIX), Microsoft would have a very difficult time retaining its monopoly position.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
I thought that the issue at stake was whether M$ so deeply rooted IE that it was impossible to remove it and maintain functionality?
Did I miss something? What brought about the change?
Yes it is modular or Win98 Lite wouldn't exist.
forget it.
According to Microsoft's Windows XP Embedded Sys. Req. page, only the database version of XP Embedded doesn't require Internet Explorer. I have no doubts that the modular aspect of XP Embedded allows IE's removal, but also consider that, technically, these are two seperate oprating systems. Microsoft might reply with a similar statement. It looks like a cheap cop-out for Microsoft, sure. This might just end up being another weapon to use in the anti-trust case. The problem will be figuring out who it will best serve.
This
In previous court testimony he has said that source code is free speach (see his public policy page). Yet he seems to be suggesting that Microsoft's private free speach can be regulated by law while others cannot. I want to have my cake and eat it too as well, but it seems to me that he has to pick one postion or the other.
K.
K
...then how come I've been able to DO IT many times? I have an MP3 player system that I built that runs Win95B w/ IE uninstalled (no internet anything required) and Outlook Express was nothing but an added hole for me as I use a third party client, so I removed that from my Windows 2000 machine.
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
that if they pull Windows from the market, they lose all rights to Windows an must release all materials pertaining to it to the public.
I'm wondering if that shouldn't be standard for all products pulled from market never to be seen again.
Is it just me, or did file browsing become incredibly less stable (esp in the 9X kernel) once they intergrated the browser into system function? I regularly lose both by folder views AND my browser should there be an error in one or the other regularly. Here is a good example of where integration clearly does NOT benefit the end user, helps extend a Microsoft monopoly from the desktop into the browser space, and generally overall makes no logical sense from a desktop point of view.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
I don't believe that any of MS components should be ripped out. I would hate for example to buy a PC and have to download IE because my OEM ripped it out.
What I do belive would level the playing field, and anyone with any common sense will agree, is that MS has to open their API's and File Formats.
MS must document how to interact with their products fully. Ie full open documentation for Active Directory so products like Samba can compete. And of course open FULLY documented MS Office file formats. This way I can buy/download, and office suite that is a perfect drop in replacement in that all files open perfectly every time.
Just my 2 cents.
According to this link at Microsoft, they're using Embedded XP to challenge Linux:/ xp/evalu ation/compare/notlinux.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/embedded
Have fun tearing that apart.
there's another professor who will never work in this country again.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
How modular is Linux?
How easy is it to pull apart the pieces?
(I honestly don't know the answers, so input would be great).
Honestly, coders strive for modularity on almost every project. Theory says its possible, but anyone that's worked on a large OO project knows that there is always an exception (usually a dozen) to the rule, and "seperating" the modules is a lot more work than you'd think.
So, the professor is correct that THEORETICALLY there is modularity that's simple to seperate.
It always gets me when people ask professors about stuff that a business does. Like this. Most professors (note: I said "most", not "all") go to school and get their bachelors, then grad school for masters and PhD, then off to teaching. Most haven't had much of a job outside the schooling system. Sure they know the theory expertly, but theory and practice, as always, are different.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Where did M$ coders learn how to code? Don't they know that building large systems in a modular fashion makes everything evil? It seems like Microsoft is trying to get us to believe that their flagship product is a tangled mess of inseperable code that they can't sort out.
perlgolf: the only place where shorter is better
Well, I think the important issue is that Microsoft has been found in court to have a monopoly on Windows. Having a monopoly per se isn't illegal, but leveraging that monopoly to promote other of your own products is, at least in some cases (I'm not terribly clear on this).
:-)
So if KDE had a monopoly, they'd have the same problem
(IANAL)
Unfortunately (or fortunately, I guess depending on your perspective) this is probably pretty easily defended. The difference between an embeded OS and a consumer computer OS is pretty significant. In the embedded OS, you can take out a bunch of features and not consider the OS to be crippled. Whereas the lack of those features in a general purpose consumer computer would make that OS crippled.
The reason is that in the embedded space, the OS tends to be used for very specific services. Thus removing any services not related to the one being provided does not cripple the OS. But in a general purpose computer, as the name implies, the OS is expected to do a huge variety of things. Hence losing some of those features would cripple a general purpose OS, but not cripple an embedded OS.
An analogy: an automobile that came with no radio, no cup holders, no airconditioning, a net instead of a drivers window, and no doors, would by consumer standards be crippled. However those same things that cripple a consumer car are requirements on a car that's going to race for NASCAR.
So while it's interesting to see that MS *can* modularize their system. It's not a very compelling argument.
(Just a minute, I gotta get on the asbestos suit on... ok flame away.)
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
Since when does Microsoft care about standards?
between bundling a browser on a distro cd and shoving it so far up the kernel ass that it's ALMOST impossible to remove it.
I don't see how this will help the case against Microsoft. Just because they can make an OS that doesnt have its key features it doesn't mean that its not crippled. Windows WILL be crippled if it has to stop shipping with IE. And even if it doesn't ship with IE people are still going to download it right after. Maybe people should stop wasting their time trying to punish a company that makes a good product and start making products that can actually do nearly as much as Microsofts products.
And that's all fine and dandy.
However, there's nothing stopping a developer from writing their own controls or using a library such as Qt for their UI. Since it's not mandatory that a developer use the Windows Common Controls to write a Windows application, Microsoft's argument that the browser is too tightly integrated to remove is absolute bullshit, and always has been.
The example of XP embedded is a very good one - as far as I can tell, the lionshare of Internet Exploder "embedding" has been in the Common Controls. The most glaring example I can think of is the CReBarCtrl - a new toolbar style that you had to install IE 4.0 or higher to have access to. Again, it's not mandatory that you use it, and since it's not mandatory, Microsoft's lawyers simply prove that they're full of it.
The larger problem here is that here on SlashDot, we are the technically elite. We are the upper 1% of the technically minded, Mom and Pop AOL user wouldn't understand my comments, and unfortunately, neither would most judges. Lawyers, on the other hand, get to submit partial information and not full disclosure to try and sway a judge's opinion. The crux of this is: Did Microsoft embed Internet Exploder into Windows? Yes. Is it mandatory to use this? NO!
And thus, Microsoft's argument that they can't remove IE fails. Some applications may need the extension, but that's their own damned problem.
"crippled" - this is totally subjective. sure, removing certain windows components will limit functionality (or discard excess baggage) but the level to which it does according to microsoft would "cripple" the OS. the notion that it is indeed separable isn't new after all.
When will you guys understand? Windows has always been modular, in that it separates functions nicely into DLLs which export APIs and can be replaced or removed as needed. It's rather that as a standard part of Windows, many MS and non-MS apps use components from IE to do various things, like render HTML (including many non-"web" apps that use the HTML renderer as a quick way to have a nice UI), or do network stuff like HTTP queries without having to "reinvent the wheel" with each app.
If you remove IE (meaning all the dlls that form it, not just the stub executable which is little more than a front-end to the underlying HTML rendering and networking DLLs), sure the OS will still run and you could definitely still use it as a server, BUT a lot of user-level stuff like the shell and applications, not just IE, would suddenly break. So even if it were removed, you would need to have some sort of other implementation of the functionality that IE provides to other apps via COM.
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Some of the most inept sysadmins I know hold MCSE's. Most of the best are self taught.
;)
Can I put that on my resume?
I wanna see perjury and conspiracy charges. Along with lawyers on both sides disbarred-- MS's for conspiracy and the Govt.s for claiming they had no case, AFTER they won.
This lawsuit is irrelevant already.
It's the mandatory bundling and licensing terms for OEMs that is the biggest problem.
Bundling IE is fine and always has been.
-bill gates
Ha ha!
</NELSON>
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
...that IE is a removable component; the x86 PC market has been an open market since its inception, and there's no reason why Microsoft should have to limit the functionality [so-called or not] of their software because people trust Microsoft over Netscape. Free enterprise, people. It's your choice what browser you use. Corporations should not have to pay for the mistakes of people who shouldn't be using computers in the first place.
Each PC needs to have a sticker on it that says "$120 of the price of this PC goes to Microsoft for its products" like they have for the $.33 gasoline tax here in Indiana.
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
Microsoft's Lawyers attacked the profesor, claiming that he is bias toward the Mac platform as is made obviouse by his last name "Appel".
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
After all, you're still alive without your arms, legs, eyes, or even a kidney.
It doesn't mean you're not crippled.
Lobbing off something like the HTML component from Windows is really no different.
98Lite is a perfect example of this. Your OS becomes less functional, you can't use many features.
That's not to say you can't go and remove any added components. Such as Messenger, Calculator or Solitare (just to name a few), but remove enough and the value of the product goes down the drain.
So yes, Windows can be taken apart. But it doesn't mean it's not crippled.
The point is, you are not crippled, except on a really hot day. Same goes for radio, electric seats, and this list could go on - but you get the gist of it.
The only argument against my point is that someone needs to understand dependencies - and the mechanically challenged might have to take the car into the shop to have these things performed. Big deal.
Bottom line: these blathering greedy idiots are slowly but surely sinking into the very *shit* they've been producing, and I (as a MCSE) am truly enjoying the irony; albeit humor! It's all good...
db
Cig:
ôô
... and in a speach next week Bill Gates will proclaim himself "Father of the DLL"
and Microsoft has already created a version of Windows for interactive television boxes that has removable functions
Hey, not only for television boxes. My windows-pc has removeable functions allready! Let the machine running for >1 day, and i can't access any function anymore!
this sig has intentionally been left blank
Of course he's biased against Microsoft.
Rob Miles
http://paypal-nomore.blogspot.com
You can remove or replace almost any component in Linux. You can build custom kernels that have the modules that you want. Although this is not ultra-simple and the average person probably can't be bothered with it, lots of people do it. I have seen minimal systems built to improve speed and stability, and I have seen kitchen-sink versions that were built to cover any eventuality. Don't like sendmail? Yank it out and tell your apps to use something like Postfix!
And I agree with you that those darn poindexter academic types need to learn a thing or two. Why hire a theoretical physicist to design your rockets, when the average athlete has a real world understanding of gravity?
"feels a bit like the last presidential election: you root for the lesser of two evils."
Yeah, and you end up with the EVIL of two lessers.
Bush is a shmuck from hell. Gore was/is no prize.
Kiss your ass goodbye.
I always thought that Dos/Windows was already crippled.
... that is 'modular' mean that XP or Win95/98/ME is modular???
I have yet to see someone claim that you can rip out IE6 from XP without compromising stability in a major way (if it will even run).
Why is this even being discussed. What kind of penalty is it to have MS produce hundreds of variations of XP that can't (and most likely won't out of spite) be supported? How does this benefit the consumer?
I can think of a whole lot of OSs that have other items/code/programs built in on load that this would apply to as well, including several major linux distros.
My thinking is that the next OS offering for the consumer market from MS should have a load/install control panel that lets you choose what components are installed during intial installation. This means they have to design their next OS to be modular... not that many OEM's are going to load nutscrap or Opera (which crashes every few minutes on most machines). They may opt to unload MSN components in favor of ICQ or AIM or YahooMessenger, or load AOL (they do already), but so what... just more junk for people to uninstall once they get their computers home anyway.
Microsoft likes to enshrine products by stamping the name into a paving stone for their campus. I've seen a photo (somewhere) of the paver for Modular Windows. If I remember correctly, they built it, but never shipped it.
You'd think the States would have sent someone to snap that picture, showing that Microsoft themselves think this is a good idea.
There is a modular version of Windows called WinXP Embedded (still a beta)
Having used it, I can tell you it's a royal pain to make a stripped version of Windows that's actually useful.
Consider this flamebait, or whatever, but how does having Internet Explorer installed on the machine stop you from using Mozilla? I use both side-by-side all the time.
I think for the most part that the apps included with Windows just plain suck, so isn't that enough motivation to go buy the competing products?
Microsoft certainly gets the browser stats. A bunch of developers or wannabes that are mostly running Windows. Sounds like the perfect market for .NET adverts.
Given that M$ is already a monopoly, and their products are difficult to get rid of, it's a little late in the game to be talking about how to break up Windows without breaking up Microsoft.
If M$ strips Windows down to a "Lite" version and starts charging for the current batch of "bundle-ware" (WMP, IE, Outlook Express, file & print services), they will just find ways to force us to buy all that crap by making their other monopoly (M$ Office) products work so much better when "Microsoft Humpty-Dumpty 2002" is installed. It won't take M$ more than a month to break down Windows into "Feature Packs", in which the pricing and packaging are specifically geared towards making everyone buy the "whole enchilada". It's like buying a car and discovering that you can get a stripped down model, but if you want traction control you have to buy power windows, a big stereo, and leather seats. You don't need to be a monopoly to use bundling to sell things that people would not otherwise buy. That practice will continue whether Windows is modularized or not.
In the short run, consumers would be totally screwed by M$ exploiting the revenue possibilities of bundleware. Eventually it would be good for Linux, as the pricey nature of Windows triggers the search for OS independance.
Either M$ is a monopoly or it isn't. The government either takes meaningful corrective action or M$ continues with business as usual. Breaking up Windows is a poor substitute for any if the other possible legal remedies.
all gather round and respond to the group-mail that was sent...
"slashdot story... get out the fud machine..."
why do you do it? it's transparent b.s. is there some unwritten change in the rules that allows you to fool all the people all the time?
go home and get a real job with some ethics "bundled" into it.
I'm honestly surprised that I haven't heard this offered as a reason.
When you ship a product, you test it with every supported configuration setting and option. It's great to talk about modular software in Computer Science class but out in the real world you have to acknowledge that that is not true. I know I won't just arbitrarily yank out any "modular" components from the product I work on and ship it without testing to see the effects.
The test matrix for Windows is already pretty huge. I'd imagine multiplying it by even a small number (with/without IE, with/without media player, etc.) will increase test costs immensely.
Mmmm.. Donuts
I don't see how this will help Microsoft in its fight against OSS. Just because they can market their product better than anyone else, and abuse the entire industry with their monopoly power and money, does not mean they can actually make a good product. MS WILL be destroyed or diminished if it does not stop it's abuse of it's monopoly power. And even if it does stop it's anti-competitive, illegal practices, enough people are pissed at them and there image is damaged enough to seriously hurt them and their stock price in the long run(read as: SELLL!!!). Maybe people should stop wasting their time trying to apologize for a company that has illegally sucked billions of dollars out it's industy and many others and start trying to help the Industry repair itself from MS's abuse by writing MS letters asking them to please change their ways(hehehehehehehhhehe heh he he, hohohohhhhhehehehahahhahha , ok I'm back up off the floor now), or just start supporting alternative, non-closed platforms. [ Reply to This | Parent ]
prisoner# msce18xxxxx. Currently planning my escape.
Thou shalt not fuXx0r with thy system's core components unless flanked by thy trusty backup.
I'm sure you know that now though, but for the benefit of the younger, less patient readers... You can never trust anything to do a good job of something as extreme as that without risk. It most likeley said "ALWAYS BACKUP YOUR DATA" in the EULA at least...
You do read your EULAs, right? ;-)
Ali
"Windows and Linux can co-exist on the same machine." - Microsoft Corporation.
It seems like to me, microsoft should be using linux as the reason they do this integration. If you install RedHat with the gnome environement, you're going to get a web browser(galeon), cd/ripping/burning software (grip), a web server(apache), and a office suite(albeit weak).
How could they compete if they didn't include this software in their operating system?
Ian
mshtml.dll = 90% of IE
So, people want to have MS remove the ability to use IE, but still allow everyone (including 3rd party software) to take advantage of the IE rendering engine? Come on. That's asinine.
That's why 98lite and IEradicator are really nothing more than a gimmick.
Arandir,
Apple can do it because they are not a monopoly, pure and simple. Microsoft used a monopoly position to further themselves at the expense of others. Lady Justice still wears her blindfold. You either don't understand or are unwilling to understand monoply practices in America.
Supposing that instead of forcing Microsoft to remove IE, let's get them to change the tiny bit of code that identifies the browser to a website, so that no website can tell the difference between Netscape 6 and IE.
If you don't like windows, don't use it. Those of use that use it off and on, like having a built in browser that works and correctly renders most pages.. Hell you don't go around complaining because kde3 comes with a browser.
MS is a monopoly, fine. There is still no reason not to include a browser with the OS, it is common practice in the OS market to do so. I don't know of any OS you pay money for that doesn't come with a browser.
I wish MS would just rebrand a version of vanilla win95 call it win2000 home edition and sell it for $100 then all you people that enjoying using windows and netscape can buy it and install whatever software you want and think you are having your cake and eating it too.
If you don't use windows, you don't even deserve to complain. Just use whatever OS you use and whatever browser and other OS components you like and shutup about it.
People who use fountain pens don't go around telling all of use that enjoy cheap bics about all the benefits we are missing out on. We like our pens to come with ink and cheap plastic shell we can chew on. If you enjoy putting the ink in the pen yourself, more power to you, but some people like using a product that provides everything right out of the box.
*parody warning*...
"I solemnly swear that Windows isn't modular" - Steve Ballmer
Why weren't any Microsoft officers ever convicted of purjury from the last case? That lame "Whoops! We gave you the wrong version of the video" excuse wouldn't fly in any school in America and shouldn't in a court of law. It's almost as bad as "The dog ate my homework."
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
In anticipation of the antitrust trial, Microsoft modified Windows 95 to *integrate* IE and other components. It was plain and obvious when they did it. IE was *ALWAYS* a separate application up until they did this. In fact, it was based on code from another company: Spyglass Mosaic, one of the many Mosaic project spin-offs.
And, as a programmer, this "integrating" is the antithesis of any language or system design of the past 20-30 years, even Microsoft's own operating systems and language compilers allow extensive modularity. It is clear to anybody with a brain the Microsoft did this to prevent remedies that involved IE.
It's true, in a sense. IE isn't the big issue. The big, evil issue is Microsoft's licensing practices with the OEMs. They have been up to much illegal *by present law* behavior in that regard. They are criminals under the current state of US contract/antitrust law for reasons that have nothing to do with IE. Unfortunately, other goofy aspects of the law have this case revolving around the IE integration (because Netscape's complaint started it), rather than the more obvious wrongdoings.
Comparing IE to Hyperterminal is a bad choice- Hyperterminal *can be removed.* If they still made Telemate for Windows, I would remove the copy on my Windows box.
IE cannot be removed without 98Lite. This is not a huge crisis for desktop users, perhaps, but it *is* a huge crisis for corporations who might have reason to choose Netscape over IE, StarOffice or Lotus over Word, etc. It's worth noting that some *governmental entities* have standardized on Netscape, because it passed some goofy security audit they conducted, that IE hasn't been subjected to. In these cases, there's no simple way for them to pitch IE while keeping Word (which they also standardize on, go figure). It's this aspect- keeping Netscape/whoever from winning the huge corporate contracts because you *can't effectively use* Netscape with IE in the way- that is anticompetetive.
Think about it- corporate users were *paying* Netscape for their licenses. When IE came along welded to the OS, it became a very poor proposition for them to pay money for something that couldn't even guarantee them the security (or whatever) that they wanted, because there was now no way to keep the employees from hitting Windows-R;iexplorer.exe.
Of course, it should've played out differently. Netscape should've had the balls to buy up the makers of 98Lite, or written their own version. For that, I curse them.
I think every programmer knows that removing IE is not as easy as setting iexplore=false before compiling. IE is the gui shell. Its your desktop cluttered with files. Its the my computer icon, the start menu, etc. Its like wanting to run Xwindows without a window manager. (yes I know thats a loose comparison but its almost true)
Do stripped versions of Windows support ActiveX? As far as I know, it's part of IE.
Many applications use it and probably break without it, for example Eclipse. Also, som apps even use IE for rendering HTML, for example Winamp's minibrowser and Gnucleus. If these programs will break with a stripped version of Windows, then IE & ActiveX really are part of the OS.
If microsoft wants to include IE in their OS, let them do it. It's not like they are stopping you from installing Mozilla or any other browser. Quit whining and do something productive.
What if you asked Toyota to make a car with a joystick for steering instead of a steering wheel? Of course you can't let them leave that steering column in there, and they should probably re-engineer the driver's seat now. Is it possible? Sure. Should every car manufacturer consider alternate steering methods when designing their cars? Of course not.
Cars today are very different, and suited to very different people and lifestyles. They are unique, heavily engineered pieces of work, and they are only modular to the point where you can replace things like wiper blades with parts at Wal-mart, but not the transmission.
This comment doesn't apply to IE and Microsoft since it's too extreme, but so is yours.
I installed XP Professional yesterday and could've swore I saw IE in the list of add/remove windows components. When I get home from work I'll check but I distinctly remember it and going "Hey, this was never there before!".
Anyone else with XP Prof care to comment?
Thanks,
--
Matt
Which [API is Microsoft hiding]?
The complete specification for the interface that MSHTML.dll and friends implement.
What are you trying to do and why can't you do it without that API?
I thought I'd start a project to write a wrapper around Gecko to use it as the renderer for apps that use MSHTML.dll. (This would effectively replace IE.) But without the spec, it becomes at least an order of magnitude more difficult.
Will I retire or break 10K?
In other news, professor Andrew Appel is America's newest multi-millionaire.
Semi-OT, does anyone know of a replacement file manager for Windows 98?
Use winfile.exe (Windows 3.1 legacy FM). Or search Google.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Linux is essentially all modular. It's so modular that Linux is the wrong word.
"Linux," properly speaking, is just the kernel, which is a very small part of what you think you're getting when you buy or download a distribution. The philosophy of all UN*X systems is essentially the opposite of the Windows philosophy. Make the real OS, the kernel, as small as possible, and build up the system by adding parts. The kernel is a crucial part, but most of what makes up what you think of as Linux has nothing to do with Linus Torvalds. For this reason, RMS is encouraging people to call it GNU/Linux. He can be strident about it, but he has a point.
No soup. It's there, but all it does is remove access to Internet Explorer from the desktop or the start menu.
This "middleware" aspect to Netscape -- a platform on the platform -- was what frightened Microsoft (according to Netscape, mind you), causing Bill and company to come after Netscape with chains and knives.
This will only become worse (from billg's perspective) as the mozdev projects mature.
Will I retire or break 10K?
That is a great point. Microsoft stockholders take note: Your company is claiming that its key product is low quality & difficult to maintain.
In other words, you own stock in a company that is arguing their product sucks!
Yes OS X still works when you remove IE. But is it possible to write a program like Napster, KAzaa which has a built-in browser and that browser is one of the best?
Yes. Just embed Gecko. It's as easy as embedding MSHTML (IE's rendering engine) on Windows. The problem then becomes replacing Windows's MSHTML with a wrapper around Gecko.
Will I retire or break 10K?
his phone / email info below:
please call to thank him
Phone: 609-258-4627
Fax: 609-258-1771
Address: 409 Computer Science Building
Department: Computer Science
Email: appel@cs.Princeton.EDU
Emailbox: appel@cs.Princeton.EDU
Netid: appel
Voicemailbox: 84627
Homepage: http://www.cs.princeton.edu80/faculty/appel/
MS is a monopoly, fine. There is still no reason not to include a browser with the OS, it is common practice in the OS market to do so. I don't know of any OS you pay money for that doesn't come with a browser.
What you fail to realize is contained in what you just said: MS is a monopoly.
A monopoly is obligated to act in a different manner than non-monopolies. Obtaining a monopoly is not illegal, but in doing so, you are taking on a public responsibility to not abuse your position.
You cannot take stewardship of a public trust, like the telephone system of old, and then deny the ability of third-party telephone makers to sell telephones that work with the system. You used to have to buy your phone from the telephone company. No other phones allowed. Seem fair? That is what MS is doing. They own and control the Windows OS as a monopoly, for the benefit of the public. That is not illegal. What MS is trying to do is say that you have to buy your telephone from only them. That is illegal. The alternative proposals from the non-settling states simply want force MS to allow consumers to use non-MS telephones with the MS system.
As such, even if all other OSs include every application under the sun, Microsoft cannot do so if, in doing so, they leverage their monopoly in OSs to promote their non-monopoly in applications.
Now, we can argue all day (and MS and DOJ many years) whether notepad.exe, write.exe, word.exe are OS components or applications. It is definitely not a bright line, and hard to write into a binding order.
If you don't use windows, you don't even deserve to complain.
In reference to the above, the fact that MS has been judged to have a monopoly in consumer OSs means that they hold that monopoly for the benefit of the public. As such, I have the right (and responsibility) to complain about the abuse of that monopoly even if I don't use Windows.
The abuse of the monopoly does not merely affect Windows users (through higher prices, restricted ability to alter Windows, etc.), but it affects the entire market.
It affects us all, whether we use MS Windows or not, because it affects the entire consumer OS market, which determines entrepreneurial activity, R&D investment, new market development and alternative product introduction.
That affects me.
carved out of one piece of wood.
However, i created a prototype with removable legs, so that means the 1-piece is modular.
-Michael Roy Some people are like Slinkies. Not really useful, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down
WinXP can't be made modular! Boo hoo!! STFU. The evidence that WinXP is modular was right in front of their faces and it's about time that they were called on it. Trustworty Computing my ass...
Why yes I am paranoid! Thanks for asking!
Yes if the professor does well, they might donate another building to the university.
not only that, but you'd be hard-pressed to figure out a way to get rid of it via a registry hack a la messenger.
that said, i'm sure *Microsoft* should be able to do it. I'm not sure it's in everyone's best interest, however.
-------- -praktike
I know its modular, because i have seen the source to Windows2000. And i have confirmed that entire parts of the os can be swapped out, and it can still run stably. Lets see linux do that.
"Princeton University professor Andrew Appel said in written testimony that modular design is an accepted standard in the industry"
Of course, he was referring to his own industry -higher education.
Seriously, just about anyone reading slashdot is as qualified to make these general statements as he is. I thought MS was supposed to turn over source code to determine the feasibility of removing IE. Why don't they have someone read it instead of quoting from the Programming 101 textbook?
I do not know if this would be legal (IANAL) but couldn't they get some sort of court order for MS to allow a few experts to check the code and see if they could remove parts of windows (eg IE). This seems a better idea than these constant yes you can, no we can't... style arguments. The experts could even sign a non disclosure agreement.
"Madness is something rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, peoples, ages it is the rule." -- Nietzsche
The Maxtor NAS box is stock Windows 2000 with a few extras tossed in to do remote management.
Even the raid software is just the MS stuff that comes with w2k.
Yes, I've surfed from my Maxtor boxes, right before I shipped them back because they're such crap.
I am continuously boggled at some of the moronic remedies that the government comes up with.
Who cares if Windows can be made modular? I can assure you it isn't the consumer.
If people had the choice on Dell's web page between Windows Complete (CD burning, voice recognition, defragger, remote desktop, pkzip support, browser, compiler, whatever) and Windows Scrawny, which one do you think they would choose?
I WANT my OS to include this shit. That's part of the appeal of some of the Free OSes out there. When you install Mandrake or Redhat there are hundreds of other apps that come with it.
Remember this is about the vendor being able to modularize Windows, not the consumer.
Every discussion about Windows not being modular or about impossibility of removing different Windows components should start by visiting 98lite.net. Didn't anyone mention about it in the court when Microsoft showed the fake presentation on how IE is the key element of OS?
~shiny
WILL HACK FOR $$$
In fact, it's kind of a basic tenet of object-oriented programming, which microsoft execs and lawyers are evidently not familiar with.
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
if a machine can read it, and a human can design a machine, a human can read it. it may take awhile but it can be done :p
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Suck my dick you cock gobbling homos!
According to the declarations he has made in various high-profile court cases (follow the links on that page), Professor Appel appears to consistently maintain a distinction between commercial speech, on the one hand, and code publication for purposes of research, academic advancement, etc. There is no inconsistency here. Move along.
Perhaps you were confused by the verbiage he quotes on that page from various judges, making a somewhat more simplistic equation of (code == Free Speech) (???) Those are the opinions of the judges, not necessarily Professor Appel's...
This doesn't take into the case where the defendant believes that they have not committed a crime. If everyone understands the law such that they could adjudicate on a crime, I don't think we'd need judges or juries ...
It is also to be said that at the end of the trial, the defendant is *judged* to be guilty. This is the case where "proved beyond reasonable doubt" is not necessarily the same as "mathematically proved".
Ok I for one believe that Microsoft is NOT a monopoly and see little wrong with what they are doing. I see a few of their business practices as a little off, but who cares? I think its screwed up that Digidesign doesn't support PCs as much as they do Macs (http://duc.digidesign.com) but lawsuits aren't needed.
/. poll, apparently its used still)
Here is why I don't see anything wrong with Microsoft.
1) Their browser IS removable. See Win98Lite or other programs. If you aren't a complete moron you can remove things. I don't see why a company isn't allowed to put their own software with their OSes. Toyota puts their stereos in their cars along with their crappy speakers. If they wanted to bolt them into the frame of the car so I couldn't take it out I just wouldn't buy the car! But instead it is possible (using 3rd parties (ie. BestBuy)) to remove their stereos and put new ones in. The same is true for Microsoft! Don't like IE? Delete it! What says that you can't install Opera alongside IE? I personally like IE better than Netscape, so I use it. I was using Opera for a while, but stopped for no real reason.
2) What says that Microsoft is your only choice? Linus wanted a different thing to play around on so he gave us our Linux Kernel. If you don't like it, make your own! I don't have this skill, but I am happy enough to use existing OS's. You do have choices:
Linux
Windows (all versions)
OS2 (check recent
FreeBSD
MacOS (pre X)
MacOS X
Amiga
Netware
There are a ton more, but how is Microsoft the only choice (as in a MONO-poly? If you get a system with WinME on it (as my laptop was) you have the FREE choice to Fdisk the thing and Linux it! If you don't buy a computer through the normal stores, then you can get it with Linux or NOTHING preinstalled. Even better, build your own.
3) What's wrong with them packaging Media Player? I use Sasami2K and Winamp for all my media needs. Media player isn't stopped me from making choices, being stupid would stop me from making choices.
4) Why should Microsoft have to OPEN their source code to everyone? Why should they split their browser? Should Ford trucks be required to carry Nissan spare tires that do nothing but take up space and make things slower? I don't really want Realplayer installed when I get Windows. I personally liked Win95, it fit on those 30 or so floppies and ran incredibly fast. Look at ME or XP home now! I have the Internet theirfore I have choice. If I take something off and it doesnt work perhaps I shouldn't have done that, or perhaps I should bust out some skill and MAKE it work.
What OSes am I running then? What browsers do I use? Whatever seems best for the task:
My laptop is running Redhat 7.2 with Ximian Gnome
My desktop is running Win98 for Protools and Redhat with Ximian for daily activities. I have a CE 2.0 based PDA and I am thinking of picking up a dual processor G4 to use protools on.
One last thing. Think a moment what the OS market looked like before Microsoft did anything to it. They have had their hands in almost every OS production to some degree (kinda scary huh), (Xenix, OS2, DOS, Windows, MacOS). I personally like console based OSes, but haven't they opened it all up to anyone now? I mean I disagree a little with MSFT, but they really aren't the only choice. Microsoft isn't great, but people have choices, and they can make them by themselves. Every OS has its good parts and bad ones. We should thank Microsoft for Win9x. It was a good thing.
The Princeton computer science department sucks a large one. For that matter, Princeton sucks at engineering altogether for a school with that sort of budget.
Oh, hoooo hooo hoo haaa haaa haaa haaa!
That BSOD joke was so funny and ORIGINAL!
Thank you, you fucking humor-impared retard.
(The DLL's in question are important, as other applications expect those DLL's to exist. - thus the we can remove IE arguments.)
However....it appears that Microsoft may win on the definition...and still be required to remove IE.
Microsoft software developers were so good that they fix all the bugs in all of their code in only two months! The way I see it, modularizing Windows should only take them a couple of days.
Check it: the DOJ has found that their business model is monopolistic and anti-competative.
That line should read: "Check it: The Pre-Ashcrof DOJ has found their buisiness model is monopolistic and anticompetative" The current DOJ seems to have priorities to getting the economy rolling and trampling constitution as opposed to upholding the law(correction Pre-Ashcroft law).
"Can't sleep. Clowns will eat me"
The shodoclc.dll file is the core of the Windows HTML rendering software...even 98lite leaves this and another IE DLL intact so you can VIEW WEB PAGES without a hassal from your applications.
XP is even more dependant on it, so it makes sense to leave more in.
Obviously, if they don't get their act together, they will have to push on their MS Linux Project
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Joe Sixpack isn't deciding the case. Joe Sixpack doesn't understand that taking radium water is bad for him either, but he's protected from that. If you think it should be up to him, then you can be responsible for all the troubles that he (and his kids) get into.
Lady Justice: Did you employ exclusive OEM contracts?
Defendent: Yes.
Lady Justice: Did you employ those contracts to further your own business at the expense of others?
Defendent: Yes.
Lady Justice: Then you're guilty.
Defendent: But I'm not a monopoly!
Lady Justice: Then who are you?
Defendent: I can't tell you, because that would be cheating.
Lady Justice: Give me a hint.
Defendent: I can't. You're supposed to be impartial.
Lady Justice: Let me take off my blinders and look at you then.
Defendent: You'll make a mockery of everything you stand for if you do.
Lady Justice: Well, how else can I determine who you are?
Defendent: Why do you need to know who I am?
Lady Justice: So I can apply the correct statutes.
Defendent: You mean there's more than one?
Lady Justice: Of course! Either you don't understand or are unwilling to udnerstand monopoply practices in America.
Defendent: Okay, take off your blindfold.
Lady Justice: But you're not Microsoft! You're Joes's Tire Warehouse!
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
modular design is an accepted standard in the industry
But what does that have to do with MS? Yesterday, we learned that MS coders are all geek rock stars.I'm not sure if anyone's suggested this before, but why not just code up a replacement DLL that uses Mozilla for the HTML renderer instead of IE?
Thus, you wouldn't really 'need' IE anymore.
Its called Windows 95A (originally, IE was an add-on for win95).
I'm sure they can get the Windows NT kernel, and port the Windows 95 UI to it without a problem. Unless they don't have the source code to Win95 anymore (yeah right).
OR, if thats too hard, they could simply back-port the non-IE APIs (such as directX) to NT 3.51 and go that way.
There is NO technical reason why they *cant* do it, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar. It may be some work, but fuck... this is *supposed* to be a punishment...
smash
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Without the intrusive middleware, the thing would actually work. People would not be looking for the latest version, and hence rely on their doggedly old Windows1836, just as we have old clunkers on the road.
Since a working windows would not help Microsoft take over the world, it would be ....
crippled!
{OT subject="cripple"}Years ago, I heard that you could circumvent viruses by renaming command.com to 1234567.com, and doing a few string hacks in the kernel. Lots of other 7-letter words work: legless.com and cripple.com. Armed with the wheel-chair icon, it makes a dandy command propt for Windows.{/OT}
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
I used 98lite on my WinME box in the default "uncouple IE from the desktop" mode (didn't tweak it at all). So IE is still there, but as I understand it, no longer has its hooks into everything.
Result: WinME now runs about 30% faster, and the "just because" crashes went away. OTOH, there was no functionality lost whatsoever.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
though I did have to play whack-a-mole until I turned off my Javascript.
In any case this seems more like a bug.
disclaimer:
MacOS 9.1
IE 5.1.3
forst pist
I take it there was no objection to this suggestion that Microsoft was controlling the prosecution? Funny, one would think that was more improper than the prosecution soliciting advice from Microsoft competitors :D
Who cares if the software is modular or not? The govt. has no right to tell MS what can and cannot go in their OS. How would you like it if the govt. started dictating what was or was not acceptable in a Linux distribution?
The problem I see with many posts is their belief that a web browser is not part of the operating system. The problem with that is there is no standard definition of what is and isn't part of the operating system. In the operating system class I took, the text book concluded the operating system was whatever the developer of said operating system said it was.
It [Internet Explorer] was put on to keep their monopoly - not because they thought they had a better browser.
It was also installed because it's a convenient means to report things to Microsoft (like that you've just accepted the click-wrap on a machine with THIS software unique ID and THIS CPU serial number (if applicable) and THIS MAC address on the ethernet card THIS compliment of other hardware and THIS IP address etc.)
No doubt it does similar stuff at lots of other opportunities. (Remember the "developer conference" spam where visiting the "remove me" link with IE would dump your registry into a cgi script on register.microsoft.com?) Removing IE would cripple their visibility into your box and their opportunity to use whatever backdoors they may have in it.
Browsers are the ideal place to hide such stuff. You need a network connection to get them to work. They have all the pieces necessary for finding out where a site moved to, dumping anything they can read about your machine into a server, sucking anything they want into any file or directory they can write to on your machine, downloading and running scripts, etc. All behind your back, of course.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
...I thought that Windows was just one program: explorer.exe
The ignorant belief they are wise; the wise know they are ignorant.
See the forbiden post Here
I remember a utility from a while ago which allowed you to 'uninstall' IE from 9x systems.
.dll's which had something to do with the built in html parser. 9x required those files, but not the actual IE package.
As I recall, it just left behind a couple of
I know this is a bit vague, but the information is old and I've slept many times since I discovered it.
G
"Proudly Posting Without Reading The Article"
It seems that they didn't listen when Niklaus Wirth started preaching or is there another reason that their system is such a mess?
Someone should write something that exploits one of the infinite Windows security holes and does nothing but remove IE from Windows. I can only imagine the headlines "New Virus!! Gives you options!! Download immediately". You all know it can be done.
So many developers depend on IE's API. Just for AOL and Netscape (and since they are a same company anyway), a lot of developers have to go one step backward? Those this actually benefit the user if they can't run around 60% of the applications in the latest Windows OS? Removing IE is trivial, just delete iexplorer.exe (you save 98kb of space, woo hoo!) and remove all IE shortcuts.
Anyone remember, back in the day, when Microsoft released DOS 5.0, and packaged "EDIT" (and qbasic) with it? Edit was a godsend, compared to the edlin it eventually replaced. DOS 6.0 was packaged with a defragmenter - wow, now you didn't need to buy Norton Utilities. MS has been packing more and more features into their products forever. Win98SE was just Win98+(a small company that made a NAT product, which MS bought, integrated, and packaged as ICS).
MS's business practices? Just the same as everyone else. I once read a quote by the CEO of Compaq that essentially said everyone in the computer industry plays hardball. MS just got "caught".
The problem now, apparently, is that MS did TOO good of a job. They are now considered a monopoly, and what was accceptable business practice in 1980 is no longer acceptable for them, because they have too much of the market, and now it is considered anti-competitive.
This, I believe, is a fundamental problem with capitalism. If a company does things TOO well, eventually they are considered a threat to capitalism and bashed down by the government.
It isn't as if MS has had the industry by the neck forever. They got to where they are by making the right decisions, and a little of being in the right place at the right time. Remeber Lotus 1-2-3? Wordperfect? MS took those markets away because they did it right. They had the better product/price/support/features/whatever. At a certain point, the world decided Word>Wordperfect and Excel>Lotus 1-2-3.
Capitalism, unfortunatly, has no inherent checks and balances built in once the scale is tipped too far. As a matter of fact, capitalism, by its very nature, is prone to the big guy pushing out the little guy. It is the same reason we have 2 Home Depots in my area, and no more Tru-Value affiliates. The problem, of course, is when 1 big guy pushes out EVERYBODY else.
The only check and balance built into capitalism is the overseeing government. So, Uncle Sam, it is time to go in and do what only you can do.
For such a big public case you'd think the settlement with the Federal Government would be common knowledge by now. But for someone who has somewhat followed the case......Well what was the settlement?
Also if MS is lying in a courtroom about the ability to make their products modular (it's all about bit flipping and should be obvious to even the courtroom layman that with bit flipping you can do anything and certainly someone in the computer industry should know this second nature)...
Doesn't this mean MS is commiting purgery?
Isn't this an indicatation that MS has no respect for the court system?
Doesn't this say that what ever comes out of MS's mouth is always going to be a matter of convience (strickly to their benefit and unfair to others)?
One side that we don't hear about Microsoft, is whether their fight for controling the internet is a legitimate one. (considering all the monopoly issue from one side and trying hard to remember that Microsoft is at the end: a business)
Anybody sensible knows that the browser could be removed from the OS if MS chose / was forced. It is modular (COM objects), as is most of the OS... But, is it really important that it gets removed? It's hard luck for Netscape that Microsoft chose to develop IE, and it's hard luck for them that they chose to integrate it into the OS - but was there any other business choice? There are many cool things that you can do with the OS and associated apps if you have a HTML rendering component available at an OS level... that's what MS did - having a wrapper around it to provide navigation and bookmarking facilities (in other words Internet Explorer), is a very minor thing... There was no value in MS producing *just* a stand alone browser (and charging for it), and having components in the OS that you don't put the wrapper round is pointless... Take it from the other angle, and whilst it isn't good for Netscape, there are many opportunities created for developers by having a reusable HTML component installed as part of the OS... whilst you can debate the monopolistic practises of making the browser part of the OS, what happens to all those people that rely on the fact that the components are shipped with the OS? It would be nice to see the underlying components easily replacable (in theory, as COM objects they already are if someone ever wanted to...)... but ultimately, including the functionality with the OS is not wholly uncompetitive - how many disk defragmenters are out there that you can purchase, when one is included free with the OS?
If one of my customers asked me to remove a major chunk of my product, say a core user interface library that all my configuration and set-up tools used, I'd have to say no. Not only would many of support tools not function, but I'd have a major Quality Assurance nightmare on my hands. I know slashdot is a hot bed of anti-microsoft feeling, but how many of you software developers would agree to such a thing if your boss suggested it, let alone your government.
I'm using XP Embedded and there are *major* parts of it that dont work without IE. To get the functionality we want, we have to include it. I think XP Embedded is actually a deliberate bait and switch move because the more you guys go on about how it proves your case, the more screwed you'll be when it only demonstrates how right microsoft are. That Web Set Top box build that the professor was talking about requires IE too.
I'd love to see someone build a package that guts WinNT (or 2000/XP) of the GUI stuff and runs X on top of their kernel. The only real use would be to piss on their legal arguments.
Since it's not mandatory that a developer use the Windows Common Controls to write a Windows application
Except if a developer uses something like Qt, the toolkit won't be able to use those undocumented syscalls that ComCtl uses that change with every release of Windows. In addition, Qt and ComCtl will both take up precious RAM. This is a problem for two reasons: 1. Windows's memory manager is not as efficient as the one in *BSD or Linux (this is true of 9x but may not be true of XP because it uses the NT kernel), and 2. to kick a widget set out of memory, you have to close all programs that use it. It is next to impossible to replace all ComCtl apps with Qt apps, unlike Linux where you can easily get rid of GTK+: just don't start GNOME.
Will I retire or break 10K?
"I need web browsing functionality, oh hey, here's a common Windows component I can use, or I can write my own, or I can find or license some other web browser functionality." It's an easy choice to make.
Yes, it's easy. "I need web browsing functionality, and I don't want my app to join the Internet Exploiter hole-of-the-month club. I need web browsing functionality, and I don't want to restrict my app to a single operating system that runs on a single processor architecture. I'll license Gecko, the Mozilla cross-platform rendering engine."
It's freely redistributable, afterall
No it isn't. Have you read the "Supplemental EULA" that comes with IE 4 and later? You may be referring to the Macintosh version.
so the first time you use one of these many many programs that use the functionality of IE or its common controls you have IE (or at least the core components) installed
So how do you get your customers to just install certain "core components" without installing the other multimegabytes of security holes that Microsoft wants to foist on you? The biggest problems with Microsoft's bundling of IE are 1. not making new versions of comctl (apart from the web browser control) available without downloading all 17 MB of IE, 2. heavily pushing Windows Media Player and Outlook Express along with IE, and 3. not exposing a public bug tracker to keep users informed of newly discovered (as in dangerous but so new that a fix has not yet found its way to Windows Update) security defects in IE and Outlook Express.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Yes, this is exactly different than AOL/Nutscrape wanting to set your default homepage to a site they own/control.
I uninstall Mozilla 0.9.9 and install the latest nightly build. It pops up http://www.mozilla.org/start/ once, but then as soon as I click home or restart the app, I'm back on my custom portal page loaded from the local hard drive. This is unlike the IE solution, where Hole of the Month Club requires users to security-update their browser, some security updates pop up an alert box "Are you sure you want to change the home page to MSN?", and the OS has conditioned users to OK alert boxes without reading them.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Funny. Cause there is already a Hecko wrapper for MSHTML. I guess you didn't look hard enough?
I guess I didn't. Sometimes others manage to type in Google keywords that I just never think of.
MSHTML interfaces ARE documented (how else can 3rd party apps use it if it isn't?).
Third party apps yes. But Microsoft apps tend to use interfaces that you just can't find on MSDN. I'm talking about completely replacing IE on the operating system, wherever it's used, as in "remove mshtml.dll and iexplore.exe (a wrapper around mshtml.dll) will still work."
Will I retire or break 10K?
All of Slashdot have been saying the same thing since '99....
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Embedding Gecko seems attractive, but is it supported by a big company. No?
How big is AOL Time Warner Inc? AOL owns Netscape Communications, which bankrolled the Mozilla project.
Will I retire or break 10K?