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.
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?
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.
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