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 do they mean, Windows would be crippled? ;-)
Cheers,
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
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).
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)
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
No, the question is: Will the judge find Microsoft guilty of perjury for lying about their ability to separate the code, or mearly find them in contempt of court?
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
I didn't wait for something better. I'm using something better right now.
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
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!
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.
That's why I said "essentially a monolithic kernel." Linux is much closer to a monolithic kernel than it is to a microkernel.
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.
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.
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 $.33 gasoline tax here in Indiana.
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
After all, you're still alive without your arms, legs, eyes, or even a kidney.
It doesn't mean you're not crippled.
Lobbing off something like the HTML component from Windows is really no different.
98Lite is a perfect example of this. Your OS becomes less functional, you can't use many features.
That's not to say you can't go and remove any added components. Such as Messenger, Calculator or Solitare (just to name a few), but remove enough and the value of the product goes down the drain.
So yes, Windows can be taken apart. But it doesn't mean it's not crippled.
The point is, you are not crippled, except on a really hot day. Same goes for radio, electric seats, and this list could go on - but you get the gist of it.
The only argument against my point is that someone needs to understand dependencies - and the mechanically challenged might have to take the car into the shop to have these things performed. Big deal.
Bottom line: these blathering greedy idiots are slowly but surely sinking into the very *shit* they've been producing, and I (as a MCSE) am truly enjoying the irony; albeit humor! It's all good...
db
Cig:
ôô
Given that M$ 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.
Linux is a monolitihic kernel. Windows is a monolithic OS. There is a difference, and that difference lies on how high the monolith is. With Linux, everything in the kernel, all the drivers, everything, is in one package -- but only in the kernel. XFree86 is seperate, SDoom is seperate. ls is seperate. With Windows, everything in the OS, the web browser, the IM client(which cannot be removed by conventional means, and is therefore part of the monolith), scandisk, dir, the Windows GUI, the shell, it's all part of the package -- take one, get everything.
Personally, I find microkernels are very nice for desktop systems, like BeOS or QNX. It's really just acedemic though, so either one should work for anyone.
It's been a long time.
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
Imagine MS trying to lie their way out of a prejury charge. That would be funny.
"You lied back there!"
"No I didn't!"
"There! You just lied again!"
"No I didn't!"
"Again!"
At this point Steve Balmer jumps up, calls the interrogator a communist, and does a little monkey dance. Then Mundie talks about how he can't understand why anybody would want to use non-MS products. It's really all quite nonsensical.
It's been a long time.
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
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.
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?
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?
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.
wow, for some reason, reading your post gives me a hankering for FUDge!
huh?
Where is FUD? I see no FUD.
Facts I state:
-Linux can be told to run without it's applications, such as X, or lynx, or sdoom, without resorting to any sort of trickery. It is a Kernel, nothing else.
-Windows cannot be told to run without Internet Explorer, or MSN Messager unless you are willing to to hack the registry. It is a package which includes a Kernel, and many other applications.
-While I like the microkernel design, and several OSes which have used this design, either one can work well for end users.
Hell, if you don't agree with me, disagree. Point out where I am full of shit if I am in fact full of shit. Don't make snide comments because I state the facts.
It's been a long time.
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.
But I can run X-Windows without a window manager. In fact there's very good reasons for doing so. For example, a cash register needs to run the register application and only the register application, the cashier shouldn't be able to close or move windows or get at the desktop except as the register application allows them. Ie., they need a system without a window manager or desktop, just the application running in a full-screen window.
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 $$$
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"
Hallelujah! I think this is the single most convincing and lucid explanation of the MS monopoly and how it affects the populace at large I've ever read on /.
Definitely MOD THIS UP!
Pooty tweet
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
The reason it affects me is that there is no version of Cakewalk Pro Audio for Linux/UNIX, which I would gladly pay for. The reason there isn't is because there is no other consumer OS but Windows for which programmers are willing to program.
You are wrong. The reason cakewalk pro isn't for any other operating system, is because not enough people use other operating systems. You can bash on MS all you want but until some other competitor makes another operating system that is appealing enough for other people to use, no good software is going to be written for it.
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.
Except your analogy is wrong. A closer one would be that MS owns the phone companies and gave you a free phone, free caller id, free voicemail whether you wanted it or not. And if you didn't want it you could use some other phone/caller id/voicemail made by some other company what did a half assed job of making said appliances.
Don't lie to yourself. MS isn't illegally bundling anything to windows.. they are giving apps for free. If the DoJ makes them strip everything thats not technically an OS out of windows, its not going to be any cheaper.
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?
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
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
Really? Go ask the folks at Cakewalk to write the Linux version, and just send you the bill, because you will gladly pay for it.
The problem isn't that people don't want it to buy it, or Cakewalk doesn't want to write it, it's that no one will pay what Cakewalk would ask to make it worth their while.
Java is the blue pill
Choose the red pill
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)?
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.