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.
Exactly. I htink Microsoft was rather bright in including the browser with the OS. It showed a bit of forsight into how important the web would be in the evolution of the internet as a whole. No one bitches about KDE ( via konq) and Gnome (via nautilus) embedding web code into the file managers.
I never understood why the states went after the bundling issue when it's not the smoking gun. Look at the business practices with OEM's and things like the BeOS bootloader issue.
I'm also opposed to forcing them to release sourcecode. I think it's thier right as a company to keep technology within the company if they so desire.
I tell you. This is a simple fact. If you want to hurt microsoft, force them to release specs to the office file formats. Enough said.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
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
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!
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.
The Radio, the air conditioning, the CD player, the automatic transmissions, the power doors, the power windows, the tinted windows, etc, on a car are all options . You can still buy a base model car at just about any car dealership. However, with Windows, you can't. You can go to Best Buy today, and buy either a Compaq with Windows XP or a HP with Windows XP or any other manufacturer WITH WINDOWS XP.
Given that it costs money to develop software, there is a cost associated with Internet Exploder that Microsoft is probably adding into the cost of buying Windows. However, much like a car, shouldn't consumers have a choice or whether or not they just want an operation system, or whether or not they want to spring extra money for "features" like Internet Exploder or Windows Media Player or any other middleware apps that Windows ships with?
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
I used their IEradicator utility in Win2k on my laptop (I will NOT run Windows on my main computer, but that's another story). I think I was running Win2k without any service packs or with service pack 1. I made completely sure that my system was fully complient with IEradicator's requirements. I'm only using Mozilla, both in Linux and in Windows, so I figured removing Explorer would be a good ideea.
Well, it wasn't. After the eradication process was completed, my system was working, but with some major problems. The most annoying one was the "Add/Remove Programs" in Control Panel. That thing would not even load anymore. I did not try installing any new programs after I got the error, but I'm sure that they would not install properly (since they could not be removed anymore). I was also getting some minor error messages on bootup, but I was sure I could get rid of them if I would take the time to edit them out of the registry.
When I saw that IEradicator did not do a good job, I tried reinstalling Explorer 6. No dice. It would not install at all. No matter how hard I tried, I had to give up. I even tried installing IE5 and then 4. Those didn't work either, so I tried repairing Win2k, again, no luck. The only solution I had was to reinstall Win2k from scratch.
While Windows might be modular. I'm sure it is, otherwise patching it with service packs and updates would be close to impossible, since you'd have to upgrade the whole OS if it weren't. M$ is definitely making it damn hard to remove any of the modules.
QuickTime (as a set of APIs and collection of codecs) is very different from Microsoft shoving Internet Explorer application into Windows and intertwining it as much as possible.
I'm not so sure there IS a big difference. IE is not "an application", so much as it is a set of components that expose APIs to be used by "IE.exe" (really just a wrapper around a bunch of libraries), the OS proper, Help, various third-party applications, etc.
QT - QuickTime is a complex multimedia framework. You can remove QuickTime Player, and MacOS (or OS X) will still function. You remove all of the QuickTime framework, and (esp. in OS X) a lot of diverse parts of the OS and third-party apps start having problems.
KDE - KDE is a complex user interface framework. You can remove Kwrite, and KDE will still function. You remove all of the KParts framework (incl. khtml), and a lot of diverse parts of KDE and third-party apps start having problems.
Win - IE is really a semi-complex internet, layout and display framework. You can remove IE.exe, and Windows will still function. You remove all of the IE framework, and a lot of diverse parts of the OS and third-party apps start having problems.
See the similaries? IE is NOT "a program" that can simply be removed. IE is a set of components that winds its meandering way through a lot of the nooks and crannies of Windows.
However,
All of that said, I simply cannot belive that Microsoft can not figure out how to modularize the HTML rendering inferfaces of all of those DLLs, COM objects, ActiveX comtrols, etc.
Win98Lite shows that a lot of programing doesn't even have to be done. It will remove tons of cruft that Microsoft installs, buit that is not necessary to proper functioning of the core OS. It also advises (but allows removal) that you leave certain components in place, else certain subsystems (MSHelp) and third party applications that use common components can break (lots of internet-aware apps call MShtml dlls, some IE com objects).
It SHOULD be non-trivial (compared to the total enginneering effort involved in developing and maintaing WinXXYY) for Microsoft to analyse what system calls are being made internally, clean up and document those APIs, and expose them so that MS components can be replaced by third-party components. And in the process, remove non-necessary dependencies that I am positive are there simply to make Windose break when certain things are removed.
Look at KDE - in Konqueror, you can switch from using khtml as the rendering engine to using gecko (Mozilla) as the rendering engine. The "application" stays the same to the end user, but massive flexibility and customization is acheived.
In the end, I just hope that the parties opposing the MS settlement can educate and convince a judge that MS is justing spouting bullshit about the level of integration involved thoughout Windows. Just because is all installs at the same time does not mean that ALL of it is necessary.
Good point - IE is a very good browser. And to date the only one (AFAIK) that does XSLT internally. And it only took 3 years to get there, but Mozilla's a pretty good browser now, too - it adopts a different feel that Microsoft. And you're onto an important point here: The SHARED components that Microsoft built into Windows and then designed the newest versions of explorer around also power the desktop and many other applications. That's the nature of shared components.
Having an embeddable HTML widget as part of the OS is indeed very useful. In an ideal world, this component would be totally modular, and you could plug in gecko or KHTML and everything would work fine. However, because actually making this work well enough to ship in a consumer product would require a kind of cooperation rarely found between tech companies, short of (aha!) legislative intervention. This is what makes Microsoft arguments so hard to dismiss - they push the limits of the argument, but there's usually a decent point somewhere in the core.
That said, the existence of an embedded widget is not the problem - it's the fact that it's a moving target. It's abundantly clear that Microsoft has used their control of the HTML widget to try to control larger aspects of how Web traffic moves, the latest version of this being XPassportMessengIEr.
Yes, it's a bit tricky to involve regulatory agencies in the design process of some product, but just imagine how people would feel if Microsoft was a grocery store. Sure, you can get Post cereals at the store controlling 88% of the market, but you'll have to go in the back and use the pallet loader to move some stuff and unwrap the box. Is that fair? To what extent do you tell MicroSafeway where to put stuff on it's shelves?
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.
Except that they can't. Part of the whole argument over Windows OEM pricing is that the big OEMs like Compaq and Dell, as part of their OEM licencing agreement that gives them cheap bulk Windows licences, are not allowed to make public how much it cost them. After all, if one OEM could publicly state that they got Windows cheaper than anyone else, then all the other OEMs would be able to ask Microsoft WHY they weren't getting the same deal. Keeping the OEMs from being able to compare notes allows Microsoft to set what prices they want, and make deals the way they want.
-- Bryan Feir
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.