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.

Comments

How does this compair to linux?

[FortKnox]

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.

Re:Prof. Appel's contradictions

[Fiver-rah]

I'm not sure I buy this. Appel says:

Because computer source code is an expressive means for the exchange of information and ideas about computer programming, we hold that it is protected by the First Amendment.

Now if Microsoft wanted to release the source code to their IE/Windows, I don't think Appel (or anyone here) would argue with their right to do so, even if IE and Windows were inextricably tangled. Clearly, that isn't going to happen. The issue is over the executables they release. Which are not protected. The Windows CDs which MS provides do not provide for the exhange of information and ideas about programming. As a matter of fact, the EULA you have to accept to run this software specifically binds you not to try to figure out how it works. No sane person would consider a non-human-readable executable to be protected free speech. Come on.