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.
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?
I think the issue is that Windows is an operating system that comes with all of these components preinstalled, and KDE is just a desktop environment, that you're free to install or remove at any time.
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.
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.
IE6 has no option to turn off popup windows and no right-click option that says "block images from this server."
Have you tried Mozilla lately? The odd time I boot Windows I *still* use Mozilla.
Furthermore, no browser other than IE will perform as well as it should on Windows because IE is always running. IE is the only browser you can run by itself in Windows.
However, as such programs as 98Lite show, you take the IE out of windows and still leave the ability to render html, by leaving the html rendering dlls registered and on the machine.
So, not IE, no active desktop, and the ability for apps to still use built in html rendering. Isn't this what we are looking for? Then any program could be the browser, MS would just be providing the guts.
I think that this is what MS is afraid of. They want control of the browser becuase it roughly equels control of the internet (for the average person).
Ever notice what happens when you upgrade IE? The first screen you get when IE is fired back up is a request for the user to change the home page to MSN. This is a big deal in terms of driving traffic to MSN.
This grip on the internet via IE also allows MS to embrace-and-extend... which they could still by controlling the abilities of the html rendering dlls...
You're right about one thing: it is not a technical issue. It's about control.
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!
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.
Well, it's insanely modular; what most people call "Linux" is in fact an enormous pile of software including a small (but important part, the kernel, which is Linux. And usually there are multiple choices for each component, often that come on the same CD. SO while Windows comes with edit.com, the average Linux distribution comes with say 20 different text editors. (before you ask, vi.)
This in fact often confuses people - for example, understanding that X, the window manager, and the desktop environment are all different bits often throws people for a moment. Then they realsie that this means they have a choice to pick the one they like. In fact, they don't need any of these bits if they don't need them. I reckon, for example, that if I could make Linux work on my personal machine, I wouldn't need a GUI at all as console apps + the odd SVGAlib utility would do everything I need.
In fact, Linux is so modular that you can remove the Linux part and replace it with a different kernel!
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
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?
You just said yourself what the problem is. IE is a part of the "Common Controls." Common == used by a bunch of programs. A hellbunch. So yes you CAN replace them, but someone needs to make functionally identical controls. Even if such things existed, Windows couldn't possibly ship without some sort of Common Control library. So if it's not MS's common controls it's someone else's bundled and integrated with the OS.
As for it being applications' own problem, I say it's not. They used a component that was guaranteed to be installed on every version of Windows. That's a no brainer. Microsoft has harmed itself bending over for backwards compatibility and their track record shows that once they put something in as a common component they will maintain compatibility as long and as much as possible. If you are an application developer and you say "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. Now, all these apps that expect IE to be there and it's not, you know what they will do? Install IE. It's freely redistributable, afterall, 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.
Looks like it's back to being your problem.
At the time MS was talking about that, they were just starting to launch Windows 98.
Just because you kept digging after someone reminded you that you wouldn't be able to climb out doesn't mean you deserve a ladder.
It's been a long time.
98lite does NOT remove a significant portion of IE. IE is still on your box, whethor you see the icon or not.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Monolithic when talking about kernels refers to a "kitchen sink" approach, where the kernel supplies many functions. This is opposed by the "micro kernel" model, where the kernel provides minimal services, and many of the functions provided by the kernel in a monolithic model are instead supplied by user level programs. Monolithic vs. micro-kernel has nothing whatsoever to do with the modularity of the code.
Most UNIX derivitives (including Linux) fall into the monolithic model, while many of them have had loadable modules for many years. However, modular source has been a feature of UNIX since the beginning, and has always been one of the attractions of UNIX.
A well-crafted lie appears unquestionable - Dama Mahaleo