Microsoft Expert Witness Stumbles

parking_god writes "MIT prof Stuart Madnick, testifying on MS's behalf, was caught out twice when a government attorney asked him to name an OS (other than one made by Microsoft) where the browser couldn't be removed. Madnick also faltered on several other questions." Basically he doesn't understand what GNOME and KDE are, and since we're all holier-than-thou know-it-alls around here, we might as well laugh at Microsoft's expense ;)

Comments

Coincidental Slashdot Fortune

[DLWormwood]

He missed an invaluable opportunity to hold his tongue.
-- Andrew Lang

Talk about perfect timing for a random draw from the fortune file...

IE is just a shell

[sql*kitten]

a government attorney asked him to name an OS (other than one made by Microsoft) where the browser couldn't be removed. Madnick also faltered on several other questions.

Is Internet Explorer any less a part of Windows than the shell is a part of Unix? Where exactly do you draw the line? Discuss.

Re:IE is just a shell

[radja]

THE shell? would that be bash, ksh or tcsh?

//rdj

Re:IE is just a shell

[adam613]

The shell is a program that runs on top of UNIX and can be replaced with a different shell at the discretion of the computer's user. I don't have to use bash; I could use tcsh if I wanted to.

IE is a program that runs as an integral part of the Windows kernel and can not be replaced by a different browser. Or so the states are trying to argue.

Re:IE is just a shell

[SecurityGuy]

Possibly not, but you can very easily remove whichever shell you don't want on the system, or just opt not to use it. The same is true of the graphical equivalents. Specifically, I'm thinking CDE. The operating system works just fine without it. The only OS I can think of which you can't separate out functionality is Microsoft's various offerings.

Re:IE is just a shell

[justsomebody]

I agreem but try to remove that shell. Gnome and Kde you can simply remove if you don't wan't to use them. But all Linux setup engines allow you to install without Kde and Gnome.

So there are two aspects of shell, removable and not removable. And because IE is so tightly integrated in a shell that makes hard way to be competitive for companies like Netscape. Don't you agree

Re:IE is just a shell

[BusterB]

Is Internet Explorer any less a part of Windows than the shell is a part of Unix? Where exactly do you draw the line? Discuss.

Does Unix require one type of shell over another? You could write init scripts that used csh, ksh, bash, tcsh, or something else entirely. You could use python interactively, or make emacs the default shell. There is no requirement of one over another fundamentally.

Re:IE is just a shell

[jaavaaguru]

In KDE, you use Konqueror to browse the internet and you use it to browse your file system too. The difference being that Linux (or Unix) doesn't stop working properly when you remove Konqueror. If it's impossible to remove the browser in Windows, then it's either a design flaw in Windows, or a blatant monopolistic attempt at keeping IE at the top of the browser charts. It's pretty obvious.

Re:IE is just a shell

[opkool]

Have you ever heard of Win98Lite?

It is a program that erradicates IExplorer from Windows. Windows is completely usable. You have to get another web browser (Netscape, Mozilla...) and a file amnager (the old on from Win95... or use Midnight Commander ontop a Cygwin bash shell).

I used back then, to get a P1666 no-mmx with 32MB of RAM to run Windows 98. Before Win98Lite, it was slow as.... as WinXP. After using Win98Lite, it was usable again, moderately fast... a cool college machine. Until SuSE 5.3 got its way into it, of course *grin*

More information can be found here

Re:IE is just a shell

[Grand Facade]

Which shell?

KRASH, of course....

Re:IE is just a shell

[fanatic]

The shell in Unix underlies the Unix permissions system.

You haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about. Not even a little.

Permissions are applied to files by the filesystem code, typically a kernel module.

The shell is a program that runs on top of the OS, interprets user commands and runs programs (as well as providing a programming language, in many cases). It is totally separable from the OS.

Maybe you meant capabilities, but again, this would typically be imposed by kernel code, with the shell utilizing the information provided. In no way could the shell be said to underly any of this.

Re:IE is just a shell

[_Sprocket_]

But KDE, the operating system, does stop working.

At first I thought "KDE is NOT an operating system". But then it dawned on me... in light of the current conversation... that's a pretty darned funny statement. Its either amazingly uninformed or a great grasp of the situation at hand.

Re:IE is just a shell

[goldspider]

Perhaps I'm taking you a bit too literally, but what is stopping people from installing and using another browser? Just because IE is always present doesn't necessarily mean that one HAS to use it (no matter how hard M$ tries to prevent you from using another browser, which is another matter altogether).

The fact now is that you CAN use another browser, and if the states are arguing that people have no choice in the matter, they are doomed to failure.

Re:IE is just a shell

[sql*kitten]

The shell is a program that runs on top of UNIX and can be replaced with a different shell at the discretion of the computer's user. I don't have to use bash; I could use tcsh if I wanted to.

IE is a program that runs as an integral part of the Windows kernel and can not be replaced by a different browser. Or so the states are trying to argue.

Well, you could replace /bin/sh it's true, but you would also have to rewrite all your startup scripts and much of your systems administration utility set.

You can install another browser on Windows too; just because MSIE is there doesn't mean you have to use it.

Re:IE is just a shell

[GreyPoopon]

Perhaps I'm taking you a bit too literally, but what is stopping people from installing and using another browser?

The issue is not the ability to install and use another browser. It's a tad more complicated than that.

1. Microsoft argues that they can't unbundle the browser, and it must be included with a Windows installation. This, of course, puts all potential competitors at a loss because a user is not likely to be motivated enough to try a competing product when they already have what seems to be a perfectly good tool.
2. Many people say that they should just remove the IE icons. That doesn't work either because too many other tools and applications on the system tie directly into the IE application. It will still come up anyway.
3. Footprint is the big one for me. If you don't unbundle the IE browser so that it can be replaced with another one, you're drastically increasing the memory and hard disk footprint needed for browsing. With today's monster hard drives, the storage space isn't all that much of an issue, but those blasted libraries that get loaded at bootup are already hogging memory. When I run Mozilla or Opera, they have to compete with IE because it is already loaded and taking up memory.

Re:IE is just a shell

[goldspider]

All of those points are true, but that goes a tad beyond the scope of my original post.

The parent of my first post implied that the states are arguing that users have no choice of Internet browser. Like I said, the efforts of MS against and ramifications of using another browser (as you pointed out) are certainly factors in the decision, but my point is that despite all that, the decision remains in the hands of the users.

Now if MS downright disallowed the installation of another Internet browser, the states would have a more solid argument.

Re:IE is just a shell

[opkool]

Yes, a typo. It was a P166.

And, belive it or not, it run smoothly. I upgraded it from 16 to 32 and then to 40MB. The last upgrade was because I was using MS-Word to do long papers, so I needed the extra RAM.

Now some cousin of mine is using it as a college box. With Win98Lite + Office95 (IIRC).

Heck, I had been running Win95-original on a 486/DX4-100 with 20MB of RAM !

It was a little slow, bot nonetheless, completely usable. Although Slackware with no X was really fast there :)

Re:IE is just a shell

[walt-sjc]

Damn. Wish there was a "clueless" mod option. The shell has virtually NOTHING to do with permissions. It hardly even touches them. The kernel enforces permissions and other applications (such as chmod and ls) set and view them using the functions provided by the kernel. The shell is mainly just a user interface. In fact, when you "exec" a command from the shell, the shell is GONE and replaced by the application.

What you don't comprehend is that UNIX is modular. This allows us to replace virtually every single command/component in the system with a different one. It also is what allows us to fairly easily support multiple differnt file systems of which linux supports over a dozen (maybe almost 2 dozen), different terminal programs, window managers, desktop environments (kde/gnome/etc) and web browsers.

What MS is trying to do (and having a hard time with) is actually having a stand-alone component be integrated. If MS wants to be able to upgrade IE (and it history proves that it does), it MUST be modular. The very fact that IE is upgradable totally blows MS's argument that IE cannot be separated.

Now there is the argument that you would lose the shell. This is bull. MS already has a IE-free shell that was available in 95 and NT4. What they did since then was add hooks in the shell to call IE at various places.

The bottom line is that there is no reason that Mozilla / netscape / opera couldn't use the same APIs that windows uses to "integrate" with IE other than the fact that MS keeps those APIs secret.

Re:IE is just a shell

[DennyK]

Win95 used to run just fine on my old Cyrix 200 w/32MB. Even Office 97 didn't bog it down too much... ;)

DennyK

Re:IE is just a shell

[tshak]

Microsoft argues that they can't unbundle the browser, and it must be included with a Windows installation. This, of course, puts all potential competitors at a loss because a user is not likely to be motivated enough to try a competing product when they already have what seems to be a perfectly good tool.


What about all the competition with the calculator, Telnet clients, PPP clients (Who buys Trumpet Winsock?) etc. The Internet is now one of the most common uses of a computer. Of course MS is goign to bundle or even integrate a browser into their OS since that's what their customers want. Does a consumer even "know" what a PPP client is? Should these be "unbundled" from the OS so that there can be more competition? The competition is in the OS, and what the OS bundles. Maybe IE should be able to be removed (at least superficially, like the win98lite program does) by OEM's. Although, I've yet to see how this benefits the customer. They want something that works, not with 100 privacy settings.

Footprint is the big one for me. If you don't unbundle the IE browser so that it can be replaced with another one, you're drastically increasing the memory and hard disk footprint needed for browsing.

Huh? Opera takes an additional 4MB of space (on top of IE which is not that big either). While I use Opera, IE is not "browsing at the same time" and therefore is not "increasing the memory footprint" for browsing. Your browsing experience with Opera is not affected at all by the existence of another browser on your system. I fail to see any technical merit in your point.

Re:IE is just a shell

[jedidiah]

Blackmail.

The "people" in this case are NOT the general public. The general public does not buy operating systems. They are not the real customer here. Claiming that they are is extremely dishonest and hides the fact that Compaq, Dell, Gateway and Cabal do all the real work in the PC market.

It is the Dells and Compaqs of the world that should be free to REPLACE components in windows. Much like a trailer dealerhip, they should be able to take out the cheezey plastic doorknobs and replace them with nice metal ones.

Microsoft's current monopoly power prevents them from doing so, eventhough it may be in a VAR's best interest to get rid of a particular MS component to minimize their own support costs.

Re:IE is just a shell

[_Sprocket_]

Certainly. It was an anonymous responce to your post. But its still amusing. KDE is not an OS, but then IE isn't either.

Re:IE is just a shell

[1010011010]

While I use Opera, IE is not "browsing at the same time" and therefore is not "increasing the memory footprint" for browsing.

It is running all the time, unless you have replaced explorer.exe

Re:IE is just a shell

[tshak]

Not as far as an Internet Browser is concerned. There's no IEXPLORER.EXE running while I'm using Opera. There IS when I load IE specifically though. As an internet browser it is not running all the time.

Re:IE is just a shell

[jedidiah]

Microsoft doesn't sell to the end user.

Microsoft doesn't SUPPORT the end user.

Compaq does. Gateway does. Dell does. If they, and by extension their customers, want a particular feature then it's up to Dell, Compaq or Gateway to ensure that it is a part of the product that Dell, Compaq or Gateway sells to actual consumers.

Re:IE is just a shell

[jedidiah]

No it doesn't. KDE goes chugging right along. You can use as much or as little of KDE as you want and even mix bits of GNOME and other interfaces as your tastes dictate.

All that removing Konqueror does is disable those features that Konqueror is responsible for. Most (if not all) of those features can be handled by competiting applications.

Re:IE is just a shell

[Lemmy Caution]

If you removed all the components of an operating system that someone else may at one point have charged for as a separate product, you'd be in pretty dire straits. Didn't Chameleon once sell a TCP/IP stack? Should MS and Apple remove the TCP/IP stack from their OS' to prevent "unfair competition?" Should all network protocols be removed because Novell is trying to sell one?

There's a lot of places where I think Microsoft should be slapped down. The bundling issue and their heavy-handed tactics with their channels may be one of them. The browser one isn't, and IMO is an ugly precedent.

Re:IE is just a shell

[Eil]

What about all the competition with the calculator, Telnet clients, PPP clients (Who buys Trumpet Winsock?) etc. The Internet is now one of the most common uses of a computer. Of course MS is goign to bundle or even integrate a browser into their OS since that's what their customers want. Does a consumer even "know" what a PPP client is? Should these be "unbundled" from the OS so that there can be more competition?

You're just being absurd you know, and judging from the number of +2 replies, it doesn't look like anyone bought it. (Except me, I guess.)

They want something that works, not with 100 privacy settings.

And suddenly you've become the representative for Joe Consumer? This court case has nothing to do with consumers themselves. Let me make a quick example of what is at the heart of this case...

I've introduced many people to Mozilla, and a lot of them have been floored by how much more useful (and stable) it is over the bundled Internet Explorer. After being with Mozilla for a month, most of them loathe the clumsy interface and lack of features of Internet Explorer.

Let's say this Mozilla thing storms the computing industry and every man, woman, and child wants it installed on their computer (since "The Internet" to them is the equivalent of a web browser). Since the unwashed masses are not generally comfortable installing new software and downright fear having to download something as large as Mozilla, the OEMs are getting all kinds of requests to put Mozilla on their systems.

It sounds like a no-brainer to everyone from sales to marketing, but by the time the licensing department hears about it, the idea is shot down. They cannot legally do that since Microsoft currently dictates exactly what can be installed on their computers when they go out the door. The result of this is that people cannot get the software they're demanding pre-installed on their computers. It might be great, wonderful, world-changing software but thanks to Microsoft, it will never see the light of day.

That is anticompetitive, that is hurting innovation, and that is what this court case is about. There are of course more angles to it, but this I feel is the most important one.

Re:IE is just a shell

[tshak]

How was I being absurd? My point is as a piece of software becomes a ubiquitous utility it eventually becomes a part of the OS. Windows, or even DOS did not originally come with a Dialup Networking client, a Telnet client, or even a calculator. To bundle simple tools that interface to protocols (such as HTTP) that are very commonly used is an obvious extension of the OS.

re: OEM's and mozilla ...but by the time the licensing department hears about it, the idea is shot down.

I agree with you fully here. There's two different issues. It _IS_ anticompetitive and unethical for MS to prevent Dell from packaging Opera or Mozilla via strong-arm tactics. Dell should also be able to put a more robust Telnet client as well. However, this should not preclude MS from bundling IE or a Telnet client either. So, MS, from a technological standpoint decided to use part of the IE rendering engine for other parts of Windows functionality. Big Deal. Deleting the Icon off of the Desktop and replacing it with the Opera icon won't hurt anything.

To summarize, I don't think that the government should be telling MS how to build their products, rather, they should be heavily regulating how MS does business - unless, their product makes it physically impossible (or unreasonably possible) for Dell to install Mozilla onto the machine. However, this is not the case by any means.

Re:IE is just a shell

[SecurityGuy]

Good point. I'm not a Mac guy, but I haven't seen its shell-like functionality replaced with anything else. Still, the MS browser problem isn't present. I've used Netscape, and IE when required, on them for quite a while. I don't believe anyone's claiming Macs are crippled if you don't install, or delete IE.

don't be too polemic

[stew77]

Yes, this guy obviously doesn't have a clue what an operating system is. However, it's true that any KDE-based distro is in the same situation as Windows is: Sure you can remove the browser, but that will kill certain other programs that need to be replaced as well (e.g. the file browser) and other programs using the browser functionality will also lose freatures (e.g. no more HTML help in your IDE).

Re:don't be too polemic

[m_evanchik]

Yeah, but even to retain these degrees of functionality (file browsing and reading html files) don't you have a choice between several programs.

What my real question is, can't you swap out between several choices of competing browsers.

I'm asking because I don't know the answer.

Re:don't be too polemic

[TheConfusedOne]

Those are called interdependencies. Yes the KDE specific pieces that expect to use a browser will stop functioning, no the Linux system won't stop functioning.

Microsoft has been going around trying to claim that you need IE for Windows to run. IE is "inextricably linked to the OS" and "removing it would cause the OS to cease functioning". Strangely enough, the same IE install also works on the server versions of their OS code which they claim are different from the workstation (professional and home as they call them) versions of their OS code.

"HTML Help" is a wonderful dodge that MS invented. Here they are using psuedo-HTML in proprietary compressed files. The only reason that "HTML Help" doesn't work under another browser is that they're not using HTML files. Another point for the ol' "Triple E" MS approach I guess.

Finally, if its evident that the witness doesn't know about OS's then why is he testifying about them? After all, he has been called as an expert to testify about the effects of these proposed remedies on the OS.

Re:don't be too polemic

[Urban Garlic]

Oh, go ahead, be polemic.

In the first place, even though KDE does have an integrated browers, it's not integrated into the operating system -- it can't be, because KDE isn't an operating system, it's a desktop environment. And in the second place, while it is admittedly rather large, the KDE desktop API is open, so a competitor can write a KDE file/web/whatever browser that takes full advantage of the integration also.

Re:don't be too polemic

[lactose99]

I think the point is that you *CAN* deinstall Konqueror and KDE will still function. Granted some additional functionality might be missing, but it can be done quite easily via a 'rpm -e' or otherwise.

With IE, there is no way at all to deinstall the program.

Re:don't be too polemic

[mark_lybarger]

they may have the same codebase, but the builds are different, so the code is different. from a QA perspective, it's different code. different possible execution branches, different functionality.

Re:don't be too polemic

[Rogerborg]

• it's true that any KDE-based distro is in the same situation as Windows is

It's 100% true... less a few tiny differences.

1. KDE isn't an operating system.
2. KDE isn't a monopoly operating system.
3. KDE isn't an illegaly leveraged monopoly operating system.

So apart from it being completely, utterly different to anyone but an uninformed hermit, it's exactly the same.

Re:don't be too polemic

[sheldon]

This is sort of like arguing Ford wasn't responsible for installing Firestone tires on the Explorer because tires aren't a car.

Yeah, didn't make sense to me either.

Re:don't be too polemic

[reflective recursion]

The government should just invalidate their corporation then. Destroy their business altogether. Why muck around, if consumers remain to be hurt? I'm not seeing how doing anything to Microsoft helps consumers in any possible way. And there is the fallacy that Microsoft is a monopoly. Yeah, yeah the government found Microsoft guilty of having this elusive all-powerful monopoly status. And innocent people are sent to deathrow. And OJ is walking the same streets as you and I do. Justice is blind, but can be very dumb.

Re:don't be too polemic

[jgerman]

Nice try, but no. There is an accepted definition of an OS and it has nothing to do with the government. Just as there is a definition for a file system. Calling a filesystem browser part of the filesystem is not just foolish, it's dead wrong. There is a huge difference between what is required to be there for an OS and what is a user application. IE is a user application. It is not, or at least, should not be required. But that's not the root of the matter. The real problem is MS using monopoly tactics to drown out competition. For instance telling vendors that they cannot remove IE from the desktop, ect. It was to this accusation that MS claimed that IE was non-removable for their defense.

Just because you, or the government, or some pretentious asshole from MIT (no offense to real engineers, and prof at MIT) don't understand what an operating system is doesn't mean that the definition doesn't exist.

Re:don't be too polemic

[markmoss]

4. You can replace KDE's built-in browser (Konqueror) with a competitive program such as Mozilla and have everything work. Microsoft OTOH has somehow rigged Windows such that even if you plug in a different browser with the same general functionality, many things break, and other things will still call IE. One example is the help files, which require a browser but are somehow non-standard so other browsers can't read them. And from the stories I've heard, apparently when IE is activated through one of these hidden paths, it is apt to go and change the file-type bindings so things which were working with Netscape will suddenly start launching IE instead...

Re:don't be too polemic

[walt-sjc]

Um, you seem to be forgetting something. MS WAS tried and found guilty of abusing their monopoly power. This was upheld in the court of appeals. MS broke the law.

We are now in the remedy phase where indeed the government CAN tell MS what to do, just like in any civil case where the guilty party can have all sorts of penalties such as fines, requirments to change contracts, etc., etc. etc.

Our laws are here to protect us from companies that behave like MS, and allow for penalties to prohibit them from continuing illegal behavior.

Your analogy is also like a rapist defending his right to rape. "Why should the government be allowed to tell me what to do?" Well, maybe to protect society from the people breaking the law.

If you don't like it, write your congressmen. Tell him that you don't like having the government penalize people for breaking the law and see how far that gets you...

Re:don't be too polemic

[tshak]

No, the original post got it RIGHT ON. What MS did wrong was strong arm OEM's via very ethically questionable tactics. A monopoloy should NEVER BE FORCED to build inferior products. Packing a common interface to a standardized infrastructure based on consumer demand is not only obvious but silly for the government to question. Get rid of Dialup Networking, so that Trumpet Winsock can come back. And I want a VW steering wheel on my Honda please.

Re:don't be too polemic

[walt-sjc]

You are still not getting it. When you break the law you can be forced to do anything the government tell you you must do. If you don't like that, you need to change the law. Period.

While I agree that it is silly to remove IE outright, forcing MS to open up the system and release the API's that allow the "middleware" (which is the term the courts are using to describe IE) to communicate with other parts of the system is a good thing. This way OEM's and others could install third party superior alternatives to the "middleware". If it takes forcing MS to remove IE to accomplish this, so be it.

When MS closes the APIs, and locks the door, you stiffle innovation. With all the third party applications being locked out, MS has lost all reason to innovate. They have the monopoly.

Lets carry your analogy the other way. Let's say MS built houses. They were all the same. You didn't like the kitchen layout and wanted to remodel it. The MS way would not let you do that. You could add another kitchen, but the existing one couldn't change. How is this good? Why would you want those kinds of restrictions?

Lastly, who says that Windows without IE would be inferior? Maybe I want a browser that doesn't have a gazzilion security flaws forced down my throat. Frankly, I find Mozilla superior in many ways such as the ability to turn off pop-up ads.

"Silly mortals, I know what you need and want. How DARE you question me?" -- Bill G

Re:don't be too polemic

[shyster]

It's 100% true... less a few tiny differences.
KDE isn't an operating system.

You're right, KDE isn't an OS. But, then again, neither is Windows 9x. DOS is the OS, Windows is a shell (or window manager). Of course, consumers don't know the distinction, and they all expect a modern OS to have an integrated GUI. Windows is the GUI, just like KDE is a GUI for Linux (there's no reason to get into X, Gnome, etc.). Linux will run without without a browser, without KDE, and even without X. But, then, so will Windows (don't believe me? just rename c:\windows\win.com and reboot...). Of course, Windows program won't run, but then neither will KDE programs run without KDE.

I'd say for an apples to apples comparison (at as close as you can get at least), KDE(+X+Linux) is equal to Windows 9x.

KDE isn't a monopoly operating system.

That's irrelavant in this instance. He wasn't aksed to name another monopoly OS. For that matter, it'd be an oxymoron to have 2 different monopoly OS's, wouldn't it?

KDE isn't an illegaly leveraged monopoly operating system.

Bah. See above.

Re:don't be too polemic

[shyster]

There is a huge difference between what is required to be there for an OS and what is a user application. IE is a user application. It is not, or at least, should not be required. But that's not the root of the matter.

And it's not required. It's only required if you want the Windows shell to work. Go ahead, try it. Open your system.ini, find the line shell=explorer.exe and change it to shell=progman.exe. Now just delete iexplore.exe and the IE DLL files (major one that comes to mind is shlwapi.dll). Reboot, and you'll be looking at Windows 3.x Program Manager goodness! Gives you all the functionality (and then some) of an OS to boot. If you're really hardcore, just boot to DOS.

Re:don't be too polemic

[Arandir]

The API for KDE is fully documented. And KDE is a componentized desktop. Mix and match to your heart's content, and as long as your replacement components follow the API, everything will work with no loss of functionality.

Re:don't be too polemic

[reflective recursion]

They define what a car consists of, you say? They tell GM to explicitly produce X product with Y features? Sure they have regulations on safety. But keep in mind that all car manufacturers must abide by them. Will Apple Computer have to abide by what the government defines as an "operating system" for Microsoft? Nope.

TUNES is not an operating system as the term is understood in established use. Windows is.

Uhm. Established use? You are truely scaring me now. Are the Thought Police going to force me to call what I create an "operating system" and then force me to change what I create to fit their vision of an "operating system?" I sure hope not. Yet this is what is happening to Microsoft. What they were originally charged with was OEM deals. Absolutely 100% legal. Coke or Pepsi has the same deal with Disney. Coke/Pepsi have the same deal with movie theaters.

MS would like to define Windows based on what is commercially and legally in their interest and not on what the true properties of the OS are.

And the Slashdot crowd yells "Microsoft doesn't innovate!" What hypocrisy. Of course they create what they want that benefits them! That is the entire point of capitalism .

Eg, cheating? I wasn't cheating on the exam. I was using innovative techniques in establishing my resourcefulness in problem solving. Surely you wouldn't want to punish innovation!

The end result of using a calculator, etc. is you don't understand the material. Therefore, your grade should reflect this.

Eg, hand grenade? That's not a hand grenade. That's a Personal Security Essence of Peace Soft and Cuddly Love Capsule. See? It says so right on the side there. Everyone should have security. It's a fundamental right!

The end result of using a grenade is people get killed.

Where is the end result of Microsoft defining their "operating system" however they want and where is the illegality or harm done to consumers?

If you search long and hard there is only a few individuals "hurt" in this matter: Sun, Netscape, etc. You also have the whiney Slashdot crowd who thinks it's their god-given right to have control of everything computer related (just because they are nerds and consider this their turf).

Re:don't be too polemic

[reflective recursion]

Thank you for defining what an operating system is. Would you also be kind enough to give me words to say, as you have taken my freedom of speech away.

You know what? I don't consider Linux an operating system. I don't consider Windows one either. MacOS X? Nope. TUNES? Perhaps.

Back when Commodore 64 was around, did you consider their BASIC loader to be an operating system? Think hard now. It was their operating system.

What about IBM PC? The original one that booted to, IIRC, a Microsoft flavor BASIC.

A system of operating is just that. Windows with IE integrated will still let the user operate their computer. Thus, it is still an operating system. It may not be your operating system. I'll be damned if you force your definition on me, though.

A "file system" is a metaphor. An abstraction. Their is no concrete attachment to any abstraction. Some file systems contain meta-data (IIRC, MacOS). Many do not. A "file system browser" is very much a part of the file system. You could not take, for instance, XTree for DOS and simply move it to MacOS. Or Midnight Commander. They are very tied to a particular filing system and do not play nice with others. In the case of MS' browser, other people depend upon it (or at least parts of it).

or some pretentious asshole from MIT (no offense to real engineers, and prof at MIT)

Notice your prejudice behavior. "no offense to real engineers." Oh, so we now have to abide by your definition of an "engineer," do we?

Re:don't be too polemic

[tshak]

forcing MS to open up the system and release the API's that allow the "middleware" (which is the term the courts are using to describe IE) to communicate with other parts of the system is a good thing.

I agree. But forcing MS to open up their API's is different then forcing them to change their product. The government is and should be restricted as to what they can do to you, even if you've commited a crime. There is no law to change. Stealing is wrong, but the government is not allowed to chop off your hand.

Re:don't be too polemic

[reflective recursion]

You seem to be forgetting that I never said that MS was not convicted of being an abusive monopoly. Reading comprehension isn't one of your stronger qualities, eh?

Our laws are here to protect us from companies that behave like MS, and allow for penalties to prohibit them from continuing illegal behavior.

Tell me exactly how Microsoft has broken any law. Being a monopoly itself is not a crime, nor is it illegal. There may be one law ever broken by MS: they perhaps told the government to bugger off with the first anti-trust regulation placed on them. And I'm not even sure about that one, either.

Your analogy is also like a rapist defending his right to rape. "Why should the government be allowed to tell me what to do?" Well, maybe to protect society from the people breaking the law.

Tell me exactly how Microsoft has hurt you personally, as a consumer and not as a Linux zealot computer nerd. Tell me exactly how mom and pop have been hurt by Microsoft. Tell me exactly how mom and pop were completely oblivious to the Apple computers sitting right beside the Compaq they bought with Windows. Again, name the laws Microsoft has ever broken.

If you look close you will see the reasons for your belief in Microsoft's abusive monopoly. You believe they are a patterned "bad guy." You also probably believe that Sun and Netscape, etc. are "good, innocent, guys." They are simply defending themselves, right? Wrong. They are using the government as a business weapon against Microsoft. Keep MS busy long enough and Java might one day rule the operating system land. It all makes perfect sense. Use a third-party taxpayer funded entity, such as the government, to harrass Microsoft while Sun and AOL/Netscape play the "good guy" role to the open source crowd and any computer loving nerd who will listen. You think any corporation cares about your well-being? I'm not being cynical either. Mozilla being open source was very much a business tactic, and not some foolish "goodwill" that is typically thought of.

What should the government do, now that push has come to shove? They can do whatever they would like. I don't use Windows. I will tell you this: if the government fucks this up by letting vendors decide what consists of a "Windows" machine and thus fragments the x86 market, I will be thoroughly pissed if the demand for x86 drops like a rock and proprietary (e.g. Apple) computers become the norm. They may as well go ahead and prepare for anti-trust regulations against the next focal point of software dependency. Whether that is Apple, Gateway or someone else. There will be a singular controlling entity or there will be no "desktop" market again. I have a friendly suggestion: buy Apple stock now.

Re:don't be too polemic

[jgerman]

You know what? I don't consider Linux an operating system.

I stopped reading here, you're a fool. Hey I think wrestling is on, why don't you try watching that instead instead of trying to talk about something you don't understand.

Re:don't be too polemic

[jedidiah]

Bullshit.

"operating system" is a well known and well established term of the profession. It means certain things that can be agreed upon by most of the profession and is well documented.

This is a very basic and fundemental legal concept actually: judge a member of a profession by other members of that profession.

Your attempts to shroud this in terms of creeping government power is simple sleaze.

Microsoft simply doesn't get to make up it's own variant of English or computer science jargon.

Re:don't be too polemic

[jedidiah]

Why shouldn't a Honda dealership be able to put a VW steering wheel on that Honda? If they want to buy that Honda to resell to someone else AND take responsibility for the associated warranties, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO WHAT THE F*CK THEY WANT TO THAT HONDA.

Honda has no right to object or interfere.

Good software should be modular and it's interfaces should be well defined. There is nothing that should limit the quality of what Microsoft produces. This is simply a scare tactic that Microsoft uses on the IGNORANT. Microsoft is merely attempting to take advantage of a generally poor knowledge of best engineering practices.

There's no good reason that Trumpet should not be able to build and market an alternative Winsock implmentation for WinDOS.

At this time, the limiting factor would be the limits that Microsoft places on how it's product is used AFTER IT'S SOLD.

Re:don't be too polemic

[jedidiah]

So, mebbe he's just a corporate whore.

What University uses/used his book?

Re:don't be too polemic

[jedidiah]

Let's see...

A book published 30 years ago, with no subsequent editions, that appears to have a market value of ~ $2.

That certainly inspires confidence.

Re:don't be too polemic

[startled]

Again, name the laws Microsoft has ever broken.

Okay. They violated the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Next question?

Re:don't be too polemic

[reflective recursion]

Programming is a profession? This is laughable. There are loose and many times vague standards adhered to. The term "operating system" is not set in concrete and can change. It _has_ changed. When MS made the jump from DOS CLI to Windows GUI it became a new OS. You wouldn't dare think that a GUI should be a seperate item nowadays, but this same thought pattern occured back in Win 3.x days as it is occuring today with Windows and IE.

Are you a programmer? It sure doesn't seem it. Otherwise, maybe you need to learn about abstractions and metaphors.

Re:don't be too polemic

[reflective recursion]

You obviously do not understand points-of-view. Guess what? Linux doesn't do half the things I want my computer to do. Therefore, it is not an operating system from my point-of-view. Is Windows+IE an operating system from your point-of-view? Probably not. It's not my idea either. Neither is C64 BASIC operating system.

Thank you for implying I'm a troll. It makes it so much easier to win an anti-Microsoft argument that way. Why don't _you_ save me time and just say "Micro$oft $UX, L1nUx R00lz." At least then I won't mistake you for honestly wanting a discussion.

Re:don't be too polemic

[reflective recursion]

Why shouldn't a Honda dealership be able to put a VW steering wheel on that Honda?

Perhaps because it is a Honda dealership? You can't get a Whopper at McDonalds, now can you?

Anyone _can_ get VW components and install them via a 3rd party (or VW garage). Just as you can get Netscape and install it on Windows.

Honda has no right to object or interfere.

Cars can be very proprietary. Honda can do whatever they want with their cars as long as they meet government regulations for the countries they ship to.

There's no good reason that Trumpet should not be able to build and market an alternative Winsock implmentation for WinDOS.

There is no reason Trumpet should not be able to build their own OS with their Winsock installed. There is also no reason Trumpet should not be able to proprietarize their OS so Microsoft could not build and install MS Winsock.

Good software should be modular and it's interfaces should be well defined. There is nothing that should limit the quality of what Microsoft produces. This is simply a scare tactic that Microsoft uses on the IGNORANT. Microsoft is merely attempting to take advantage of a generally poor knowledge of best engineering practices.

Please learn programming. Good software is modular to a certain degree. _There is no silver bullet._ Software dependency is a _serious_ issue and Microsoft is _serious_ when they say that software depends upon IE components. Just because they are modular does not mean you can simply go replace happy or completely remove them. You know how much documentation would be needed to do exactly what you propose? You know how laughable this is, even for "good" software such as, say, GNOME and KDE? THERE ARE NO BEST ENGINEERING PRACTICES IN SOFTWARE. Read The Mythical Man-Month. There are generally good tactics to build software, but no guarantees. OOP? Nope. eXtreme Programming? Nope. Patterns? Nope. There are tons upon tons of buzzwords for software engineering, but no proven methods.

Name one OS that is modular as you propose. Describe exactly in what way it is modular and how it guarantees this modularity. Then describe the documentation provided on this modularity.

Now, describe exactly what this operating system fully consists of (the core components).

Imagine this scenerio: User goes to install replacement IE component. Component becomes replaced, but other things running depend upon the old, removed component and they become unstable and crash. How does Microsoft guarantee stability in this situation? You can't simply muck around with dependencies while everything runs flawless.

Re:don't be too polemic

[jgerman]

It has nothing to do with a point of view. Unless your a solipsist, then none of this matters. I wasn't implying that you were a troll at all, I was showing that you have a complete lack of understanding what an operating system is. Which you've continued to demonstrate. I have no problem with an educated discussion. But you aren't capable of that. Resorting to an argument that tries to reduce the definition of an OS proves that beyond a doubt.

Re:don't be too polemic

[reflective recursion]

Okay then. Describe exactly what consists of an operating system. Exactly. Then tell me who agrees to this definition and for what technical purposes. Then tell me why this definition of an operating system is the definition of one. Linux is nothing like DOS, and sure as hell is not like C64 BASIC. You conveniently ignore that issue.

Re:don't be too polemic

[tshak]

Actually, you're completely ignorant if you think that it's trivial to install a VW steering wheel on a Honda. The point is, a VW steering wheel doesn't fit in the first place, and you'd have to do quite a hack job to make it work. The same goes with IE.

Re:don't be too polemic

[jgerman]

Linux is nothing like DOS, and sure as hell is not like C64 BASIC. You conveniently ignore that issue.

Now I'm pretty sure that you're a kid, no one can be that ignorant, or if they are they don't deserve much more than pity. And since your only skill seems to be talking about subjects which you know nothing, this thread ends here. Go educate yourself, and come back when you have a clue, no wait don't come back until you have more than a clue because I'm going to give you the first one. Those operating systems are very much alike, in the functionality they provide to the user, there's your hint. Want more go read this it's a classic, and a good start. Take note, I said start reading one book by no means makes you an expert. Nor does reading slashdot about a subject.

Re:don't be too polemic

[TheConfusedOne]

I know that, you know that.

But see if you'll ever get Microsoft to admit that.

The Workstation/Server controversy goes back to the NT 4.0 TCP/IP connection limit. (It seems that people were running Netscape's server on an NT 3.51 Workstation box and everything was fine.)

I guess I was going more for irony with the statement there.

Re:don't be too polemic

[reflective recursion]

Ha! That "classic" book originally came out in 1987. You call that classic? Lets try going back to Symbolics, eh? Lisp machines with Lisp operating systems (or, for the pedant in me: LISP as it was called back then). Every OS "technology" discussed in that book is at least a decade or two old and they are all about UNIX-based OSes. Get real.

Those operating systems are very much alike, in the functionality they provide to the user

Please. DOS is nothing like Linux and they are both CLIs. The functionality provided to the user is nothing alike. You are giving me strawmen and I am blowing them down. And you call me the kid? Ha! Run along and play with your toys now, son.

I like how you completely ignore the issue and at the same time talk about the issue in a side-stepping manner and resort to immature tactics like calling me "kid." Please, grow a fucking brain you dumbshit.

surprised?

[pstreck]

Is anyone actually surprised by this. I mean come on, he's probably an MCSE too ;)

The only Answer

[KingKire64]

asked him to name an OS (other than one made by Microsoft) where the browser couldn't be removed

msLacky: Well of course you cant remove Netscape from the Mozilla Operating system.

No sir that isnt an OS

mslacky: But its EVIL!!! Ill get That damn Dragon and his little penguin too!!!!

Thats enough sir you can step down

mslacky: Dont you see him that peguin hes making fun of me... oh Mr penguin stay right there ill get you, bad Mr penguin

Huh??

[adam613]

If someone who is a CS prof at MIT doesn't understand what a window manager is, I fear for the future of CS research. I have friends who are English majors and could explain that KDE, Gnome, and XFree86 are all prograams that may or may not be installed on a particular Linux system.

Although I have to wonder what sort of deal did Microsoft offer him to forget the difference between Windoze and KDE? :)

Re:Huh??

[m_evanchik]

Isn't the linux kernel under the GNU?

Re:Huh??

[norwoodites]

Did X Window System start at MIT?
Did GNU start at MIT?

Re:Huh??

[John Hasler]

"I have friends who are English majors and could explain that KDE, Gnome, and XFree86 are all prograams that may or may not be installed on a particular Linux system."

Good thing they are English majors. KDE, Gnome, and XFree86 are not programs.

Re:Huh??

[shepd]

>What if he never uses them??

Then does he really have any place talking about them?

I don't know anything about building bridges, but then again, I don't tell people how to build them.

If I said you could build a bridge with toothpicks and expect cars to run on it, would you not call me a fool?

Re:Huh??

[John Hasler]

"I suppose you could get nitpicky and say that they are "collections of programs", but that's just silly. People know what you mean..."

No they don't. Most people will take "KDE is a program" to mean that KDE is a single program in the sense that they would say "Outlook Express is a program". This is extremely misleading.

Re:Huh??

[arkanes]

An IT professor who was called to testify about operating systems who doesn't even know what one is? No, I think he's an idiot.

Re:Huh??

[Sax Maniac]

If someone who is a CS prof at MIT doesn't understand what a window manager is, I fear for the future of CS research.

This is a bit overstated.

Actual CS research has very little to do with window managers (a particular piece of software that's useful at a some point on time on some machine) and more with mathematics and proofs (things ideally that are true and remain true forever). Especially at a top-level school at MIT, which (rightly) tends to lean more on the theortical side than the practical.

If I was going to MIT, and my professor didn't know about the latest skinnable cool Linux waste-my-time whatjamajig, I would hardly hold it against him. Chances are he's got deeper things inside his head that I want to learn.

Re:Huh??

[jedidiah]

Perhaps he's just some schmuck from the business school and Microsoft arrogantly thought that no one would notice. If MIT is anything like other schools with a similar split (Engineering CS/Business CS), then this guy might be a nice talking head and little else.

wait a second...

[ACK!!]

Gnome does not necessarily even have a built-in browser for its desktop. Galeon gives you the option of being the default browser but does not have to reside on the same system with the rest of the desktop. Nautilus is the same way. If you still use GMC you have no built-in browser sucking up space.

I thought with KDE you did not HAVE to have Konquerer though it is by default the file manager/browser for KDE. There are other file managers that can be used with KDE that do not have built-in browsers I think.

I understand fully that KDE and GNOME are desktop environments for the Linux OS. Even so, even if the desktop could be considered the OS, his examples still do not apply.

Am I wrong on this or is this guy just the clueless MIT professor ever?

This is not a Troll I would actually like to know if I am wrong.

________________________________________________ __

Re:wait a second...

[adam613]

KDE makes no requirements about what browser you use with it. I use Galeon in KDE all of the time, because Galeon works and Konqueror doesn't.

Not only that, KDE has that menu that allows you to PICK BETWEEN DIFFERENT BROWSERS TO VIEW WITH when you copy a URL to the clipboard.

Re:wait a second...

[tb3]

This guy is clearly out of his depth. Here's his homepage at M.I.T. He seems to be more of a management expert than anything else (kinda like a graduate-level PHB).

However, he is the auther of the classic textbook "Operating Systems". So classic that it was written in 1974, and has been long out of print. What the hell was MS thinking? This guy wouldn't know a GUI if it bit him!

Re:wait a second...

[krogoth]

Actually, with KDE you can remove Konqueror without much effect. Konqueror itself is just a program that can display various things, such as directories and a KHTML object - KHTML is the actual HTML rendering component and Konqueror is just a program that uses it, the same way that Galeon uses the Mozilla HTML engine. If you were to remove KHTML, you would lose more functionality but overall there's not too much that depends on it.

Unbelievable

[emf]

Each time I see another story about this I can't believe it.

The whole idea that an operating system (Windows) is dependent on an application (Internet Explorer) is a complete joke. I can't believe they have spent so much time and money arguing about this.

Re:Unbelievable

[cjpez]

Well, I don't think that Windoze is really dependant on the application Internet Explorer; more the libraries that come bundled with it. I've been forced to spend a lot of time in Windoze 2000 lately (need to access some PCAnywhere machines, unfortunately - I should see if there's an opensouce PCAnywhere client, but I doubt it), and I've noticed that IE's rendering stuff is everywhere. When you open up "help," when you're browsing around on your computer . . . The libraries that IE uses to grab webpages and show them on the screen have been re-used to hell and back again, which realy is an acceptable thing to do.

I don't know why Microsoft keeps on claiming that the application itself is nonremoveable. Just delete the IE binary; of course it's removeable. What they should do is have some kind of "Internet Services Pack" or whatever which is a basic, nonremoveable part of Windoze, and then just have IE be the shell that accesses those components. There, problem solved. I'm guessing it'd just be a matter of repackaging some things.

I'm guessing that MS is still claiming that IE the application can't be removed just because they want to keep everyone using it by default. Keepin' the resellers down and all. Or hell, I don't care if IE keeps on getting shipped with Windows, just let the poor OEM people install Mozilla by default! Anyway, yeah.

I could be totally wrong about all that, but that's how it seems to me.

Re:Unbelievable

[Lonath]

That's so right. The really sad part is that I think the states would be happy if MS would just let the OEMs remove the IE shortcut from the desktop when they set up their customers' computers. It isn't even about removing IE, it's about not having IE staring you in the face and preventing any other browser from appearing anywhere. If MS wants to use IE for internal stuff so that it pops up when used automatically, who cares? Just let Dell and Gateway put Netscape on the desktop and remove IE from the desktop if they want. All of this bitching is over default icons on the desktop. :P

Re:Unbelievable

[cjpez]

Actually, I couldn't. The machines I'm accessing are behind rather sensitive firewalls, and the only way to actually get to the machines from outside is to go over phone lines . . . I use Terminal Services and rdesktop already to do most of my Windoze work here, but that doesn't support modem dialing (afaik).

Plus, the only computer I've got with a modem at all is my laptop, and it's some sort of weird Winmodem that doesn't work well under Linux to begin with. So for now I'm stuck with PCAnywhere, I think.

Re:Unbelievable

[cjpez]

I should have done some more research before posting; seems that VNC will do the modem thing for me: rtfm. So all that's left is to get Linux to cope with my modem. Groovy.

Re:Unbelievable

[cjpez]

Well, yes, but the whole point for getting rid of PCAnywhere was for me to be able to use Linux to access this server. If Linux can't talk to my modem, I might as well just be using PCAnywhere, 'cause I'm still in Windoze-land.

Know-It-Alls

[colmore]

Basically he doesn't understand what GNOME and KDE are, and since we're all holier-than-thou know-it-alls around here, we might as well laugh at Microsoft's expense ;) Well given that this man is supposed to be an "expert witness" *some* knowledge of major competing OSes might be expected. The vast majority of Microsoft's business tactics are legal yet unsavory. I respect that. This is capitolism after all. What bothers me about Microsoft is their monolithic view of their role in computing. The honestly believe that without them, no innovation would have occured between 1985 and now, and so we should just let them walk over consumers and competitors out of gratefulness. I know it won't happen, but what I'd like to see come out of this trial would be a Microsoft not split up, shackled, or fined out of existance, but a Microsoft scared into respecting other's place in the industry. In all honesty they've done a better job than anyone else at creating a useable desktop OS good for a wide range of activities on a large variety of hardware. I'm not quite sure how they've been so successful in the server market, though. Advertising, I guess. And for my money, they still make a damn good mouse.

Re:Know-It-Alls

[colmore]

*slaps head* forgot to put in HTML line breaks.

apypollylogies.

Re:Know-It-Alls

[royalblue_tom]

You don't just get scared. You are scared because you fear something happening that you don't want to.

What don't they want to happen? Microsoft split up, or shackled.

They would actually like to be fined massively (as a final, no other restrictions remedy) - out of existence is almost impossible given how much cash they have, and without the shackles, they'll just tack it onto the cost of the next version of windows and office.

So if Microsoft know that the situations that they fear are not going to happen, they're not going to be scared, are they ...

Of course the expert doesn't understand the difference between an application and an OS. The concept that there is a difference is alien to the entire Microsoft argument at this point ...

Re:Know-It-Alls

[Dolly_Llama]

And for my money, they still make a damn good mouse.

I agree and use one at work, but fwiw, and iirc it's a rebranded HP mouse.

Re:Know-It-Alls

[gwernol]

Well given that this man is supposed to be an "expert witness" *some* knowledge of major competing OSes might be expected.

Agreed, this is an embarassing blunder by Microsoft.

What bothers me about Microsoft is their monolithic view of their role in computing. The honestly believe that without them, no innovation would have occured between 1985 and now, and so we should just let them walk over consumers and competitors out of gratefulness.

I don't think this is what Microsoft believes at all. I think they are the first to acknowledge they have "borrowed" (to be overly tactful) a great deal of technology from other places. One of Microsoft's great strengths is that they don't suffer from the "not invented here" syndrome that has stiffled some other companies. Take this quote from an article by Amy Wohl at the time when Microsoft was trying to buy Intuit:

"Give Bill Gates and Microsoft credit. They did what few high tech companies can do, put their NIH (Not Invented Here) banner in the closet, found a home (at Novell, see article following) for their own Money product, and bought what they thought was the winning strategy. Gates doesn't hesitate to reinvent Microsoft's game plan -- or Microsoft itself -- if he thinks that's what it takes. What he cares about is winning. " here

Gates and Microsoft will acquire, develop or copy whatever they need to make their platform ubiquitous. They are the first company to recognize innovation elsewhere.

Re:Know-It-Alls

[stinky wizzleteats]

I'm not quite sure how they've been so successful in the server market, though.

The answer lies in your analysis of their success in the desktop OS segment. Here's how it works:

• You are a business with 50,000 users. 99% of those users use some flavor of Windows.
• Microsoft shows up at your door one day, and suggests that you change all your servers to NT. If bribing the CIO into forcing the change down IT's throat doesn't work, and/or this suggestion is resisted...
• Microsoft threatens to do a license audit of all your PCs. You can either:
  1. Find 50,000 license certificates spread among 15 campuses, 10,000 of which are remote laptop users, and 1,000 of those are overseas, all within the two week preparation period Microsoft gives you before the audit
  2. Swallow the blue pill and become a 100% Microsoft shop.

Cisco employs similar tactics, but since they don't have the license audit leverage, they engage in character assassination of IT people who resist Cisco implementations. Isn't capitalism fun?

Re:Know-It-Alls

[rgmoore]

That's an Agilent part in those mice, not a Hewlett Packard part. And actually Microsoft has even started making some of the sensors themselves rather than buying them from Agilent. I'm actually surprised by the situation. My father, who worked on the design team for the optical sensor chip, told me that Microsoft had the chance to get an exclusive contract for the optical mouse chips but turned it down. Seems like a big mistake.

Re:Know-It-Alls

[QuantumG]

Agreed, this is an embarassing blunder by Microsoft.

No it isn't. It's Slashdot's "interpretation" of the "reporting" of the transcript. He knows very well what KDE and GNOME are.

Re:Know-It-Alls

[ClarkEvans]

This is capitolism after all.

Capitolism has nothing to do with business people who lie and cheat. Just beacuse some people in the industry cheat like dogs doesn't mean that it is right. This sounds like a child's argument -- Yes Mom, I took the candy from the jar, but so did Jeff and Mike; you can't punish me, it'd be unfair. Pure bullshit I tell you.

Re:Know-It-Alls

[Chops]

In all honesty they've done a better job than anyone else at creating a useable desktop OS good for a wide range of activities on a large variety of hardware.

People who tried BeOS will probably disagree with you. We'll never know now, though, will we?

Re:Know-It-Alls

[danro]

He knows very well what KDE and GNOME are.

He may indeed know that. But when you read the transcript you clearly see that the guy is in severe pain. And clearly out of his depth technically.
Actually I kind of enjoyed reading this.

My guess is that he hasn't kept up with the last decades of OS/desktop development and focused on management instead.
Microsoft hasn't made it easy for him... For example, read the guys really amusing attempt to avoid admitting that there are no "cross-dependencies" between notepad.exe and IE, as previously claimed by Microsoft.

Re:Know-It-Alls

[danro]

Ok, I'll go back and reread it. English is not my mother tongue (obviously), and I might have misinterpreted some statements. (I must admit, I was coding and reading at the same time. So I didn't pay full attention to the reading.)
Anyway, it was an amusing read, you can really see the scene with your minds eye. The smiling, polite and machiavellic lawyer. The squirming, sweating "victim" trying to survive the questioning. Gradually realizing that he is making an ass out of him self and will be the laughing stock on campus for months to come...
It's better than Ally McBeal I tell you! ;-)

...getting grilled by a guy who wouldn't know the business end of a compiler

That one I can relate to, I get it every other week.
By my boss. ;-)

Re:Know-It-Alls

[tempest303]

Do you mean to tell me that you think that handfull of civilians comes close to what the Taliban did?

Uh... a handful? First, it looks like we're SURPASSING the terrorists in total # of murders!

From this article:

• World Trade Center death toll about 2,800; Pentagon 125
  
• At least 3,600 civilian deaths in Afghanistan
  

More info (though a little older) can be found here.

Re:Know-It-Alls

[Danse]

Somebody else might not have developed a monopoly. Somebody else might not have abused that monopoly. Somebody else might not have used such ruthless and heavy-handed tactics to crush competition. But like the other guy said, we'll never know because nobody else got a chance. Gotta wonder what the industry would be like if there were several leading OSes, and they all played nice together.

Re:Know-It-Alls

[jedidiah]

Apple did better, so did NeXT.

Also, much of what you give credit to Microsoft for is infact the result of an entire industry of hardware vendors and an entire industry of software vendors working to accomodate a single dominant product. That is hardly remarkable.

Operating systems are supposed to make such things easy by hiding complex hardware details and exposing common and useful interfaces to application developers. Microsoft products are not remarkable in these areas.

Re:Know-It-Alls

[jedidiah]

Hardware was advancing on it's own even before Microsoft had a total lock on things. Infact, it took PC's quite a few years to catch up to what Apple, Atari and Commodore had achieved in the 80's.

The lack of a Microsoft would not have stopped Moore's law, discouraged software authors from pushing hardware, or prevented hardware makers from providing new and faster hardware.

OTOH, if Microsoft thought that it's future might be in doubt it might have fully exploited the 386 architecture or developed a viable GUI 10 years earlier.

Re:Know-It-Alls

[jedidiah]

Fast CPU's aren't the most interesting bits of hardware development. If that's what you think we might have gained from PC hegemony, then you are really quite effectively demonstrating just how much of a quagmire the industry has been in since the dominance of WinDOS.

Besides, Multi-media is a blackhole that sucks in all computing cycles. A really efficient OS doesn't change that. Developers will find something to do with all the extra horsepower that BeOS might free up due to architectural superiority.

...also, many people are still happy with 350Mhz even with WinDOS.

Re:Know-It-Alls

[jedidiah]

4. Swallow the blue pill, become a 100% Microsoft shop and slowly plan an uprising. Constantly remind management about the strain that the "new world order" is putting on the division and the company.

Consumers are ultimately cheap. Hitting them in the pocketbook is worse than hitting them in the crotch. Hit them there enough times and they will revolt.

Re:Know-It-Alls

[Veteran]

There was a wonderful quote from ancient times I saw recently, it said: "Most people don't desire liberty, they wish only for a just ruler".

How sadly true; it reminds me of the observation by Eric Hoffer: "Given freedom of choice, most people choose to be just like everyone else."

It is only the very few in each generation to whom freedom matters.

If the fact that corporations tend toward evil proves that capitalism is inherently bad - then liberals have even more to explain: Stalin's purges, Janet Reno's children's barbecue in Waco, the list goes on and on.

Liberals are afraid that conservatives will turn the country into a fascist state - and only want guns to kill blacks. Conservatives are afraid that the liberals will be waving Mao's little red book and selling the U.S. out to the Chicoms before they can turn around.

They are both right.

There are evil people in control of every ideology - form a new one, and here come the evil people to corrupt whatever it is that you meant to do.

Until we learn to recognize evil mo matter what its disguise and go after evil itself the good people are always going to be in trouble.

Humanity is like a herd of Wildebeests who have been conned into letting the Lions govern them.

Sigh.

Re:Know-It-Alls

[rutledjw]

OK, I did read those links, and what I saw was certianly disturbing. HOWEVER, i have to question the methods used to gather those numbers. When those numbers were gathered the Taliban was still in power. They were NOT letting any journalists run around reporting on these details. We had several reports of western journalists taken prisoner for trying to see what was going on. Not just American, but French and British as well.

In short, there is NO WAY I think those numbers can be verified. Period. I think there're likely blown way out of proportion for the sake of the media - which in general didn't work. This may be somewhere we disagree. Fine.

But I don't think there is any way you can state that the US did these things on purpose. I mean, c'mon, hitting civilians with smart bombs? If nothing else, from an economic and political standpoint (basically the LCD) it doesn't make sense, much less from a humanitarian standpoint.

Re:Know-It-Alls

[Thing 1]

They would actually like to be fined massively (as a final, no other restrictions remedy) - out of existence is almost impossible given how much cash they have, and without the shackles, they'll just tack it onto the cost of the next version of windows and office.

Then a good remedy would be to split them into three companies (OS, IE, Office); publish the APIs and file formats; and fine them triple damages as to the damage they did consumers.

Fine them $120 billion. Take the $40 billion they illegally obtained, as well as their profits from their three divisions for the next 30 years.

I mean, don't they take away your car and house and accuse the item of a crime (RICO) in cases involving much smaller dollar amounts than this one? Shouldn't there be some provision of RICO that could be used to accuse Microsoft's bank account of a crime and sieze it?

Re:Know-It-Alls

[colmore]

yeah, i was tired. give it a rest, guys.

Madnick is not an MIT computer science professor

[Anonymous Coward]

He is an MIT Sloan School (business school, department 15, management) professor. Many of us from course 6 (EECS) are happy to disavow him.

Generally pathetic witnesses for Microsoft

[burgburgburg]

I've been submitting stories for awhile now (all rejected) on the ineffective witnesses that Microsoft has been using during this phase of the trial.

They've had several industry witnesses who were forced to admit that they'd never read the settlement or the states proposals. The economist who testified for Microsoft had to admit that all of his research in this area had been funded by Microsoft, the Autodesk exec who after defending Microsoft had to relate how screwed over he felt by them excluding Java from Windows XP (needed for some Autodesk software). The most fun was the former Microsoftie, now head of his own company, who testified that the states plan would lead to the "balkanization" of Windows. On cross, he admitted that the Microsoft lawyers wrote the first draft of his testimony, and that he hadn't even know what balkanization meant.

How much are these Microsoft lawyers getting if this is the level of their trial prep?

Re:Generally pathetic witnesses for Microsoft

[rhizome]

I agree that this is the real story here. Microsoft isn't withdrawing their witnesses because their case is going so well, but because many of their witnesses are failing them badly. Can you imagine how juicy the testimony from Richard Fade, Head of OEM, would be? They're sick of giving the states free ammo.

Re:Generally pathetic witnesses for Microsoft

[drew_kime]

From news.com.com:

Jerry Sanders, chief executive of computer chipmaker Advanced Micro Devices, also conceded he had not read the states' proposed sanctions ...

"You've never checked to this day whether what Mr. Gates told you...was true in the remedies," Gutman challenged. Sanders agreed he had not read the states' proposals.

From the Register:

And in written testimony to the court, Sanders quotes from AMD's annual report: "If we fail to retain the support and certifications of Microsoft, our ability to market our processors could be materially adversely affected." (Remember, this is a witness for Microsoft.)

Back to news.com.com:

Gates' appearance next week would be his first in-person appearance at the trial. In the main portion of the trial, Gates appeared in a videotaped deposition. In portions of that videotape, Gates repeatedly answered questions with "I don't know" and "I don't recall." His statements were frequently contradicted by e-mails he had sent and received, and he frequently claimed no recollection of the messages.

Even Business Week, in a generally flattering review of Gates' testimony, leads with:

Is Bill Gates Doing Himself Any Favors?
He's poised and confident on the stand, a far cry from his deposition during the antitrust trial. But maybe he shouldn't be there at all

Good old news.com.com again:

During cross-examination Wednesday, states' attorney Steven Kuney brought up the issue of Windows XP Embedded, a version of Windows made for gas pumps and other machines that contains the core elements of Windows but doesn't necessarily contain browsers or messaging software, depending on how it is configured.

Kuney asked Gates if Windows XP Embedded could be installed on PCs. Gates responded, "You could configure it for that."

But Gates said he didn't know of anyone who had done such a thing, later acknowledging that one reason is because Microsoft doesn't license XP Embedded for that purpose.

Back to the Register:

One of the exhibits in the previous stages of the Microsoft antitrust trial included an email from one Chris Jones, recommending to Bill Gates that the binding of IE into Windows should be such that users would find running rival browsers "a jolting experience." At the time many people, not least of them the Department of Justice, seemed to think that this and other associated exhibits were all about the anticompetitive tying of IE into Windows in order to destroy Netscape. But apparently not - MS Windows exec Chris, taking the stand yesterday, put forward an explanation of almost patentable novelty.

What he meant, he said, was that the experience would be jolting for good reasons if it occurred because of the "great innovations" that integration of IE brought to Windows. So presumably you could think about the new versions of IE Microsoft was designing as being truly wondrous, and that users would therefore find use of the comparatively stone age rival products truly unpleasant.
...
Another interesting point was brought up by States' attorney Kevin Hodges, who established that the proposed MS-DoJ settlement had less teeth to it than appears at first glance. Under this deal PC manufacturers will have the right to install rival companies' software, but it's still feasible for Microsoft to bar them from running Netscape when the computer is first turned on. Jones seems to have argued that as IE was a part of Windows, Microsoft didn't have to give OEMs the right to run Netscape. (So much for Microsoft allowing competition on the desktop.)

Now from Wired:

Several companies, as well as the nine states, argue that Microsoft adopted open technology standards only to make them proprietary later, forcing many to use Microsoft products. Sutherland said he did not study any records of Microsoft's conduct.

"You did not take into consideration Microsoft's past conduct in these proceedings?" Schmidtlein asked.

"Only as background," Sutherland said, adding that he didn't find it relevant.

And again from news.com.com:

But under questioning from the states' lawyer, Sutherland acknowledged that he knew little about Microsoft's past anti-competitive conduct and had no experience with the kind of Web-based services at issue in the case.
...
Sutherland said any company that wants to compete in the telecommunications business must make its technologies work seamlessly with other companies' services.
...
Under questioning from states' attorney John Schmidtlein, however, Sutherland conceded he had no direct experience with Web-based messaging and was only part of a small group at Qwest that is studying the possibility of getting into the business of Web-based messaging.

He also admitted the group was formed less than a month ago--nearly two months after Microsoft named him as a witness in the antitrust case.

"My intention is to offer the court an understanding of how the communications world works," Sutherland told the judge. "My testimony is not specific to Microsoft's behavior on the Windows desktop."

As someone said, if this represents the level and quality of Microsoft's legal team's trial prep, you have to wonder how much they're getting paid.

Re:Generally pathetic witnesses for Microsoft

[YoJ]

Read the rest of the linked article. The states side didn't understand when they could admit witnesses and associated evidence, so now they are begging the judge to get stuff into the trial. It's pretty scary to think how important this trial is and how badly both sides are screwing up.

Re:Generally pathetic witnesses for Microsoft

[sheldon]

Ahh, but then the State's witnesses were pretty pathetic as well. All pretty much admitting that they had tried to bribe Microsoft with offers of "Look, if you give us this we won't testify against you."

Re:Generally pathetic witnesses for Microsoft

[sg3000]

Okay, look, just because Microsoft's witnesses have proved that they didn't read the settlement, got favors from Microsoft to testify, or generally can't tell between an operating system and an old shoe doesn't mean that Microsoft is doing poorly in the case.

I mean, you're acting like illegally abusing your monopoly to shut out competition and reduce consumer choice with hopes of cornering the market on desktop operating systems, office productivity software, media, and the Internet is a crime or something. What you're failing to take into account is I got Solitare for free. That's right, FOR FREE! Is that the sign of a heartless monopoly? No, of course not. And do I see you offering me free, cheapo quality shovelware? No, all I get from you are a bunch of "facts" and "news". Well, you can keep your "facts", Mister-- I've got a game of Klondike I must win!

Re:Generally pathetic witnesses for Microsoft

[sheldon]

You obviously haven't been following this case very closely. While I'm not a teacher and it isn't my job to help keep you up to date on current events, here is a link to one of the older articles discussing this:

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-874153.html

There were similar accusations made in emails by AOL execs, Novell execs and so forth. Go find the news yourself.

Re:Generally pathetic witnesses for Microsoft

[Arandir]

Between the money they spend on Bush/Ashcroft clique...

They learned their lesson well. The Microsoft monopoly was created during the Clinton/Reno era. But they failed to offer monetary tribute to Clinton/Reno, so they got slapped around.

When one thug breaks your kneecaps for not paying protection money, you are more apt to pay the successor thug on a timely basis. If Algore was in office now, Billy Boy would be paying him just as much.

Re:Generally pathetic witnesses for Microsoft

[iabervon]

His statements were frequently contradicted by e-mails he had sent and received, and he frequently claimed no recollection of the messages.

Of course, he was using Outlook, so it's not surprising that he sent e-mails he doesn't recall...

Simpsons

[hotsauce]

*Bully from Simpsons voice* HA-ha!

Re:Simpsons

[toupsie]

No kidding. All I have to do is post and I get a +5 Interesting or +5 Insightful. If I am Interesting and Insightful, then I really fear the the demographic that Slashdot caters too. If I was as Insightful, Informative and Intersting as the moderators say, I would be getting laid left and right in the real world. So far, I am only gettting laid right...

The most popular prof...

[Merk]

So lemme get this straight -- this guy is a CS prof at MIT, home of the FSF. He voluntarily agreed to testify on Microsoft's behalf, and then didn't know the difference between an operating system and a desktop environment?

Man, this guy's courses must be popular! I bet you really have to fight to get in to: "Introduction to flicking on the power switch thingy 101" and "How to click on the start menu 304"

Re:The most popular prof...

[Betelgeuse]

Allright. I agree this guy should have known the difference between KDE/GNOME and Linux. But, to be honest with you, I could see where he's coming from. In the world of Windows, there IS no difference between operating system and a desktop enviornment (since DOS was officially killed). Now, his example was admittedly a poor one, since you can change your desktop enviornment every week with Linux (if you want), but him using KDE got me thinking: how easy is it to remove Konquerer from KDE? Now, it's certainly doable, but how much functionality do you lose?

Re:The most popular prof...

[billnapier]

You can find out all kinds of interesting stuff about him on his Home Page

John Norris Maguire Professor of Information Technology and Leaders for Manufacturing Professor of Management Science Sloan School of Management / Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Re:The most popular prof...

[ackthpt]

As flames and flamebait go, Re: MIT and Profs there, this guy does not only himself, but MIT a disservice knowing so little about which he desired to be so precise about.

I believe the proper term here is Self-Immolation. Imagine facing his peers after those gaffs.

Re:The most popular prof...

[billnapier]

DOS is an OS? Really? Maybe just barely...

The Master was explaining the nature of Tao to one of his novices.

"The Tao is embodied in all software -- regardless of how insignificant,"
said the Master.

"Is the Tao in a hand-held calculator?" asked the novice.

"It is," came the reply.

"Is the Tao in a video game?" asked the novice.

"It is even in a video game," said the Master.

"Is the Tao in the DOS for a personal computer?" asked the novice.

The Master coughed and shifted his position slightly. "The lesson is over
for today," he said.

Re:The most popular prof...

[oever]

Konqueror has many functionalities, all modularized in socalled parts.
If you want to remove the browser from KDE, you can remove the KHTML part. The rest of the functionality will remain intact.

Re:The most popular prof...

[glitch_]

I know its been said, and your comment was posted to be funny, but he is a Management professor not a CS professor.

So it is quite possible that he is teaching "How to click on the start menu 304". =)

Re:The most popular prof...

[dgb2n]

Its not really suprising since to Microsoft, there is no difference between the operating system and the desktop environment.

No one is arguing that Microsoft should be able to decouple their windowing system and desktop environment from the operating system. In fact, unless you claim that the desktop environment is part of the overall operating system as in Windows, its next to impossible to win the argument that the browser is inseperable. Think of it as a pyramid with the browser at the top (application level). If the blocks below it aren't part of the OS (the desktop environment and the windowing system), how can he argue that the browser is?

Perhaps BEOS would have been a better candidate for that argument?

Madnick may have been fully aware that both KDE and Gnome are desktop environments and not operating systems but mentioned them anyway. Otherwise he would have had no answer and by mentioning SOMETHING he may have scored points with a less technically savy judge.

Re:The most popular prof...

[ocelotbob]

More importantly, you can change the browser and have no loss of functionality. KDE has well-defined hooks so that one can use whatever browser they choose - you can download kmozilla and have konqueror and the rest of KDE use the Gecko engine to render HTML instead of using KHTML

Re:The most popular prof...

[Odinson]

Mouth agape...

Then how did Microsoft postulate that he was a qualified expert on the removability factors of IE? Wasn't technical feasability a more primary point of contention than fiscal feasabilty? If not why not?

I realize Project Manager has the word manager in it but it has ALOT more to do with CS than traditional management. The wide availibity of more qualified persons at MIT must speak volumes about his relationship with MSFT.

Re:The most popular prof...

[Daniel]

Who is going to make a command that sends stdin to the gnome clipboard?

I'm sure I've seen a half-dozen of these at least. I think there may even be one shipped with X. (for the X clipboard, which is probably what you mean)

This is probably why the above poster was amused.

Daniel

Re:The most popular prof...

[Danse]

Yeah, but this guy spent 8 or 10 hours looking at the source code for Windows. Surely that makes him an expert! :) I'm sure it probably would have looked a lot like Beavis and Butthead trying to read something.. "Uhh... words... uhhhh... words..."

Re:The most popular prof...

[jedidiah]

They probably were going for a convincing talking head. A "management type" may well be more suited to this than a "genuine geek". By getting an MIS prof to do the job, they can portray him as a serious CIS prof while getting someone who would in theory be "slick and polished".

My guess is that they simply didn't do any serious witness prep. Had Microsoft's lawyers merely hired someone with a technical clue to help prep this guy, he probably could have come up with plenty of nicely polished retorts that could have sounded convincing to the judge.

I suspect that Microsoft just had another "arrogance attack" and didn't bother being diligent about this.

I wonder ...

[smak]

I am not a lawyer, but what I would like to know is, how much MS pay a witness like this, to testify on their behalf? (if anything.)

smak.

--
b0rk!

Re:I wonder ...

[jedidiah]

In ambulance chasing type cases, the PHD/MD expert witnesses get $1000/per hour.

Business press doesn't see it that way

[sphealey]

I have been following the trial in the general business press as well as the IT trade press and of course the Linux-centric sites. Although the IT trade press is reporting that Microsoft's witnesses are doing a mixed job and are taking some significant hits in cross-examination, the general business press is taking the line that Microsoft's legal team has everything under control this time and is crushing the States.

My guess is that the judge's viewpoint is going to be closer to the general business press than the IT world (much less Slashdot), so I am not holding out much hope for a meaningful order here.

sPh

Re: Business press doesn't see it that way

[Black Parrot]

> the general business press is taking the line that Microsoft's legal team has everything under control this time and is crushing the States.

Let's not forget that the business press exists for the sole purpose of keeping stock prices high. It's hard to imagine that they would say anything different no matter what was going on.

But of course, they have the DoJ's desire to throw the game to give them confidence that they're going to be right this time anyway.

Re:Business press doesn't see it that way

[sheldon]

I agree, although actually I would have to say that it's a case of the business press seems to have a better grasp of IT than the IT press. I'm not sure why that is, but I suspect it's because the IT press doesn't have very many trained journalists. Rather it's people who come from some amount of tech skill, and think they can write.

Furthermore there seems to be a trend of what I'd call trolling. A lot of the articles in the IT press are really just opinion columns, trying to pull in hits to their website.

But I've certainly seem more intelligent discussion of the issues in WSJ and Economist than in say Infoworld.

There have been a few exceptions to this. This opinion article came out yesterday that had some good points:

http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/m ai n/0%2C14179%2C2863457%2C00.html

This was another one that raised some interesting points, again I'd say it's more opinion than journalism, but...
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-895349.html? tag=fd_t op

Cash for questions.....or answers

[h0tblack]

"Asked to evaluate language in the proposed settlements, Madnick studied the documents, then shook his head and said, "I somehow think there's something I'm missing, but I can't spot it at the moment."

The pre-prepared script from Microsoft that they had e-mailed to him perchance?
This mail was of course lost when someone sent him a malicious VB script entitled "How to make quick easy money".
;)

He is not part of (EE)CS

[Anonymous Coward]

He is affiliated with the Sloan School of Management (Course 15), and not the EECS department (Course 6). Hence, the lack of knowledge about the OS itself. He's probably trying to get some more funding from Microsoft for the i-Campus initiative Here's his personal home page, FYI.

Re:He is not part of (EE)CS

[phasic]

Trying to associate him with only sloan does no good. Look at his qualifications:

Dr. Madnick has degrees in Electrical Engineering (B.S. and M.S.), Management (M.S.), and Computer Science (Ph.D.) from MIT. He has been a Visiting Professor at Harvard University, Nanyang Technological University (Singapore), University of Newcastle (England), and Technion (Israel).

C'mon, a doctorate in comp sci from MIT, with just one management degree compared to the 3 EE/comp sci degrees. He must know something about the subject, if not to the specific degree slashdot would like, but maybe we're not getting the whole story.

Re:He is not part of (EE)CS

[BusterB]

From his webpage:

Co-Principal Inbestigator, COntext INtercharge (COIN) project

What's an inbestigator? This seems appropriate though:

Co-Director, PRoductivity From Information Technology (PROFIT) Program

Re:He is not part of (EE)CS

[taernim]

That seems like an excuse Microsoft might use.

Sure, he is with the School of Management. But if you read the Bio part of his homepage, there are some interesting parts.

Namely: "As part of this effort, he is the recent co-inventor on the patent applications "Querying Heterogeneous Data Sources over a Network Using Context Interchange" and "Data Extraction from World Wide Web Pages.""

Also: "He has been active in industry, making significant contributions as a key designer and developer of projects such as IBM's VM/370 operating system and Lockheed's DIALOG information retrieval system"

It seems to me if the man is capable of being a key designer as said in his own Bio, then one would expect him to have knowledge of... say... things you need to know when designing? The Internet is not a Microsoft-branded product. Therefore, developing a product to run on it should work with... Non-Microsoft products and machines.

Maybe I'm just crazy then...

Re:He is not part of (EE)CS

[Alomex]

C'mon, a doctorate in comp sci from MIT.

PhDs are more about depth requirement than breadth requirement. The breadth requirements vary from university to university, and some places are famous for producing really skewed candidates ---word class experts in one area, unable to tell KDE from GRE in another.

Re:He is not part of (EE)CS

[Fastball]

Perhaps his migration to the dark side of management has tainted the Jedi mind tricks he learned from the comp sci department.

Re:He is not part of (EE)CS

[jcoleman]

You'd think that working at MIT he could afford a better wig.

Control, you must learn control!

[CptLogic]

>>Madnick testified that Microsoft (MSFT: Research, Estimates) probably would not be able to develop and market a workable version of Windows under the terms proposed by the dissenting states. He believes the requirements -- such as building Windows in such a way that computer manufacturers could alter it -- are not technically feasible.

And he's right, it's not technically feasible because Microsoft will not relinquish control of the necessary source, preferring to keep everything black boxed, the hell away from people who could alter the product that carries their name. It's about controlling how you can use the product that they are associated with, because, "hell, a third party could screw Windows up and Microsoft could get a bad rep."

We know Microsoft are control freaks, there's no way they'd allow Windows to be opened up like that, and without that unlocking of the black box, it *is* not technically feasible for a computer manufacturer to alter Windows, and the reason for this is "technically" MSFT are not legally bound to release their source, and "technically" could charge for any SDK they may choose to never release that would allow that access.

"technically" this poor bastard who's been set up to fail, trying to defend the indefensible, is correct. In an "I did not have sexual relations..." kind of way.

Chris.

The

how hard could it be to remove the brower, anyway?

[cheesyfru]

This has been bugging me forever. Nobody is saying that they need to remove the browser from the OS, they just need to disable it. How hard is it to remove the icons for it, and disable the "internet http browser" aspect until the user voluntarily downloads a tiny piece of plug-in code which enables the browser to work with internet protocols? If the world's largest and most powerful software company can't figure out how to do this, then how in the world are they getting big business to pay them millions of dollars to manage their mission critical software?

WebTV

[ehiris]

Try removing the browser from WebTv devices.

It's consistent with Microsoft's past marketing

[joshtimmons]

Reaching way back to Windows 3.1 days: Microsoft called it "Microsoft Windows 3.1 Operating System" right on the front of the box. Of course, it was just a GUI that ran on top of DOS.

Based on that reasoning, KDE and Gnome could be considered operating systems too. They're GUIs that run on top of *nix.

It's wrong, but they're using the term consistently. Perhaps they have some adgenda to redefine the term "operating system".

Re:It's consistent with Microsoft's past marketing

[King Of Chat]

Hmm. I think that shows a deep lack of understanding about how Win 3.x worked (yes, it was loaded by and used some of the DOS functions) - but I don't want to think back to those dark days.

The fact that IE (well, the HTML control) is so tightly integrated into Windows shows that MS are shit software designers. If all their stuff is so tightly coupled, it's no wonder it takes thousands of developers years to actually improve anything.

Re:gnome and kde aren't OSes

[liquidsin]

I can remove the browser from Mac OS (at least versions 7-9, never tried to remove it from OS X) and I also have a small (30 or 40 meg) install of linux running as a firewall that doesn't even have lynx.

But you can change the browser

[Qwerpafw]

As far as I know, you *can* remove the browser in windows. or at least replace it with gecko :)

All you have to do is replace mshtml.dll (the html rendering engine for windows) with one that is based off of gecko code. There! Now windows uses gecko instead of whatever they call explorer's rendering engine.

Problem is, i have no clue how to do this :). But it shouldn't be so hard for someone with windows expertise.

Now all someone needs to do is write a VB app that lets you "choose" which rendering engine you want and sell it to the DOJ as a MS "remedy." Voila! Quick cash.

Re:But you can change the browser

[bmajik]

You are infact, _exactly_ right.

I am irate with people harping on how "of course you can seperate the browser and the OS". They totally misunderstand the point.

Internet explorer implements MSHTML, a COM control that does HTML rendering and hyperlink navigation (and most of what IE does). The IE application installs and provides this control, and is the "source" for it in the "many components in one box" architecture behind windows.

Why is this relevant ?

Because nearly everything expects MSHTML to exist. HTML help obviously needs to be able to use COM to instantiate and HTML renderer. VS.NET uses HTML extensively. Microsoft Office has the ability to author and preview web pages.

You would be hard pressed to find _any_ windows app that does anything with HTML that doesn't use the IE COM component for HTML display. Not just microsoft apps - 3rd party apps as well. Microsoft apps _expect_ to be able to do something like

Foo = CreateObject("HTMLDocument")

and have it work out.

3rd party apps _expect_ to be able to do the same.

So, you can pull the IE icons and what not, but the GUTS of IE (the HTML control(s) implemented in COM DLLs) will need to remain.

So, the to _completely_ eradicate IE and replace it with mozilla is to look at the TLB for all the classes that IE exports, and create a new COM object that implements that interface, but does so with Mozilla. This is probably possible, but why should it be Microsoft's job to write mozilla code ? Hell, if mozilla were GPL it would be illegal for MS to do so, even if they wanted to. I dont know the intricacies of the MPL/NPL well enough to comment there..

Anyway, go to a w2k system, start removing HTML components, and stuff _will_ break, and break badly. Not because MS doesn't know how to design it around it, but because its not an objective. It is utterly and completely stupid to expect every software author to make their own mini-html-renderer when IE is already passably fast and ubiqoutous on the Windows platform.

So, for all practical purposes, an HTML rendering and navigation control is PART of the Windows Platform. Existing apps expect it to be there, If it isn't, they will break.

IE supplies this component. You remove every IE-supplied file from WIndows, and windows breaks. If you remove the IE icon -- which there is already an option to do--- then neophyte lawyers and linux zealots will complain that IE isn't really gone because IE-owned components remain.

Removing _those compoents_ DOES break windows and thus DOES make it inseperable from the OS.

Microsoft has dug themselves a hole with a history of misleading or flat out wrong comments in the media before. Unfortuneately, when they say the IE controls are utilized everywhere in the OS now and would miserably break lots of things if you fully removed them all, they're telling the truth. I wish slashdotters who on average have maybe written 10 or less programs of "hello.c" complexity would stop asserting that they understand completely the feasability of redesigning all Windows software to assume there is no HTML rendering component available.

Re:But you can change the browser

[rutledjw]

You are seriously destined for management

Damn, that's some cold sh!t. He just asked a question. Not many of us are very knowledgable of the inner workings of Windows.

Nor do I want to be...

Re:But you can change the browser

[tswinzig]

1. You have to find out all the functions exposed by the DLL.

2. You have to duplicate all the functions exposed by the DLL.

3. You have to do all this without the help of Microsoft.

4. You have to be willing to be sued by Microsoft if you successfully complete steps 1-3.

Microsoft maybe not as funny as you think

[rdelsambuco]

Microsoft has lost little in this whole process by "not holding its tongue." Say what you will about MS but the organization as a whole has done a good job of finding spokespeople (like the professor) who appear "respectable" -- and that's all they need.

The spin in Seattle on public radio was entirely positive onn this -- which was interesting.

Re:Microsoft maybe not as funny as you think

[fiber_halo]

the organization as a whole has done a good job of finding spokespeople (like the professor) who appear "respectable"

Yes, it never ceases to amaze me how many "respectable" people can be swayed by that payment for being a professional witness.

It would take an unimaginable sum of money for me to sell out and lose the respect of my peers.

Re:Microsoft maybe not as funny as you think

[A nonymous Coward]

If this guy doesn't know the difference between KDE and an OS, let alone the difference between KDE and GNOME, I'd say he didn't have much respect from his peers to start with!

Re:Microsoft maybe not as funny as you think

[FatRatBastard]

Not only that, but removing respective Browsers from KDE and Gnome doesn't kill either Windowing environment. He was wrong on so many accounts.

Re:Microsoft maybe not as funny as you think

[Red Weasel]

Suitable for public office?

Re:Microsoft maybe not as funny as you think

[JabberWokky]

More than that, KHTML, while perfectly fine, can be replaced - you can run KMozilla instead, and the system works fine. View/View Mode lists all the HTML viewer plugins on your system in Konqueror (if you're viewing HTML), and KMozilla is pretty darn common.

Remove *all* the html viewers, and you still can do everything else with KDE - except view help and browse the web (both of which require something to view HTML). Or you can put in your own third party HTML viewer, and distribute KDE (after all, KDE dosen't even release binaries, the distros package them themselves). MS won't only not allow people to do that, they say it's impossible to do.

--
Evan

Re:Microsoft maybe not as funny as you think

[mother pussbucket]

The frightening thing is, I've perceived the same "slant" on NPR. Might be the "support" from the B&M Gates Foundation, or the local MS consulting firms. More likely, just ignorance. With 90+% penetration, most people don't see anything but MS when it comes to an OS. And they don't care.

MS is viewed as AT&T was prior to the breakup. Most of us had never experienced anything else (or perhaps knew the horror that was European telephony) and couldn't see what all the fuss was about.

Re:Microsoft maybe not as funny as you think

[Jobe_br]

I think instead of saying:

Remove *all* the html viewers, and you still can do everything else with KDE - except view help and browse the web

you could just say that if you remove all the HTML viewers, you can no longer view HTML pages. :) That should make perfect sense, even to the lay person.

Re:Microsoft maybe not as funny as you think

[Thurn und Taxis]

the organization as a whole has done a good job of finding spokespeople (like the professor) who appear "respectable"

The particularly amusing thing about this statement is that this "computer and software expert" (from the article) is not a professor in the computer science department, but a professor in the business school. I guess Ron Rivest wasn't for sale. :-)

Re:Microsoft maybe not as funny as you think

[Malcontent]

"It would take an unimaginable sum of money for me to sell out and lose the respect of my peers."

Well lucky for you MS has unimaginable sums of money.

Product Interference Not So Uncommon

[Root Down]

Microsoft deliberately designs its products to interfere with technology made by other companies, forcing people to use Microsoft products...

This is not an uncommon practice. Don't believe me? Try installing Real Player (Real One) and watch the default installation - that which the majority of users would use - take over every media file in your system. This is directly interfering with the use of other media - now requiring extra steps to use anything but the default. Try unassociating - no obvious route exists. This is just one example.

Counterpoint: You are still able to use these alternative media, even though there is a "performance cost" involved in having to take extra steps. Don't like it? Don't be an idiot and use the default install.

Both are worth considering in the overall sense of programming specifically to exclude the competition and its prevalence in the computer industry - especially given the foreknowledge that the majority of your users will not consider themselves 'advanced' enough to select options in the non-default setup. It's another question of ethics that really has not been given a great deal of attention - though we've likely got more pressing issues to consider (e.g.: DMCA, etc).

Re:Product Interference Not So Uncommon

[glwtta]

This is not an uncommon practice.

Of course it isn't - that's where the whole "monopoly power" bit of it comes in.

IE and Windows

[ManicGiraffe]

Given the M$ penchant for random DLLs, it's entirely possible that removing or disabling all the parts of IE would indeed break Windows, since god know what else is thrown into the code with it - I think most of Windows Explorer is actually IE; not having a directory browser would make that sucker unusable. This is, of course, not a good defense - it's just proof that M$ has bad design at best, or malicious design at worst. On another note, I fear for the CS department at MIT when a professor doesn't know the difference between a windowing environment and an actual OS. That truly scares me.

python shell

[wiredog]

I've been thinking that rewriting my init scripts in python would be a fun way to learn it.

Try This...

[ScumBiker]

If Internet Explorer is so tightly integrated into Windows, how come you can upgrade it? I just upgraded the browser on my NT workstation here at the office from Internet Explorer 5.5 to Internet Explorer 6.0. Does that mean I also upgraded my operating system? Do I get better performance reading large files? Can I crunch data faster? Is there better communication between my hard drive controller and my memory sub-system? Microsoft is SO full of shit.

Re:Try This...

[Peyna]

You can upgrade certain parts of the OS without destroying others. Sort of like 95a->95b->98->98SE same OS the whole way through.

Re:Try This...

[ivan256]

You can tell that it's part of the OS because you had to reboot after the upgrade.

Re:Try This...

[scrytch]

If Internet Explorer is so tightly integrated into Windows, how come you can upgrade it?

Same reason I can upgrade the kernel, device drivers, and libc? Heck, on most commercial unixen, I can do it without even rebooting.

Re:Try This...

[sean23007]

I just upgraded from Windows 98 to Windows 98SE. Does that mean I get every benefit of Windows XP, and the hardware inside my computer is now three times faster, and the entire Internet is now faster? Hmmm... I didn't think so. Downloading a Service Pack for NT or 2000 makes certain things better, but it only makes better what it claims to make better. Not everything that an OS might do. So by upgrading Internet Explorer, you are upgrading your browser, which may or may not be an OS component, and that has nothing to do with the rest of the OS regardless.

Well this guy was an MIT prof

[rblancarte]

But that is not the point. Fact is that they destroyed his credibility with these questions. Excellent work. I have a bit more faith that the DOJ actually has some brains about going after M$ this time.

But really - what does this mean? The layperson out and about won't hear about this. They are not informed about this and regardless of what happenes, short of M$ being broken up - people won't stop using their products. I like all of this news, but the masses just don't hear about these things (they don't read slashodot).

RonB

Re:Well this guy was an MIT prof

[dcgaber]

The DoJ has absolutely nothing to do with this phase of the trial, in fact they oppose it. They have a seperate remedy proposal ::cough:: sellout ::cough:: that they are trying to get the judge to aprove. It is far weaker remedies than what the non-settling states are proposing, and most all credible commentators believe it will do absolutely nothing.

The one to have faith in is the non-settling state AGs who are still pursuing the case. The DoJ has determined they don't care, they got enough of MS $$ to satisfy their needs.

Re:Well this guy was an MIT prof

[tenman]

Are you serious about your question "Who cares if Windows comes with IE as long as one can install Mozilla? "?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and guess that your just a troll, or flamebait, better yet just joking.
If this really is a question and you strongly feel that it's not a problem for MS to force someone to ship IE with the windows product, reply to this, and I'll explain.

Re:Well this guy was an MIT prof

[kelzer]

Windows and Microsoft shouldn't go out of its way to make it more difficult for non-MS apps to work well.

They don't, that's just anti-MS FUD.

Bullshit. You all can mod me down as flamebait, but I just can't let you get away with this lie. All one has to do is go back to the Caldera lawsuit, and read the transcripts. There was email after email between high-ranking MS execs coming up with a strategy to sabotage DR-DOS's perceived interoperability with Windows. They even went so far as to encrypt the code that displayed the "error" to make it harder to see that they were doing.

It ain't FUD if it's a matter of public record.

Re:Well this guy was an MIT prof

[zaphod110676]

I don't really see a problem with them shipping whatever software they want with their OS. I do see a problem if they discourage vendors from providing alternatives.

If it is wrong for them to bundle IE, is it wrong for them to bundle solitare? notepad?

I don't use Windows simply because it is an inferior product. I get frustrated every time I sit down at a computer that uses it. It is slow, it swaps constantly, reading the floppy drive stops windows from redrawing. It sucks in almost every respect.

But it does one important thing. It makes people believe that there computer is a simple, friendly tool. It is far from that in reality, but people believe it. If that friendly tool, bites them in the ass, they tell you to just turn it off and turn it back on. No big deal.

That is where Microsoft has done serious wrong, or some would say they have been brilliant. They've lied to people about the fact that a computer is a highly technical piece of equipment that takes a certain level of expertese to operate.

They've lied to all of us when it comes to usability, reliabilty, security, and a host of other things. And that's why I hope they hang. Not because they package a web browser with their OS.

Of course you could say similar things about many other big corporations. That doesn't make it right though.

Re:Well this guy was an MIT prof

[cscx]

This is unfortunately falling back on my previous argument, but DR-DOS is not an app, it's an operating system. Name one application that MS has "engineered" Windows not to work with. That's stupid.

Re:Well this guy was an MIT prof

[tenman]

Okay, I see your point, but what about this. Microsoft sits of the board of dozens of standards boards. They help make the rules of how software operates, and how it interacts with other pieces of software.

(Stay with my I am trying to build a up to a point)

We all realize that Microsoft sits on the board of the W3C. They are there when the rules are made. Then they take the standards, and do what we refer to as "embrace and extend". As it stands right now, IE complies with ALL ECMAScript standards and is 100% compliant. They are more compliant out of the box then ANY other web browsers. However, the theory of embrace and extend says that now only does IE support all the rules of ECMA script, but they through in rules of their own. Now, this is not so much a problem in that they are giving the consumer more access to the tool by opening up hooks for developers to play with the application. Here is where they "engineered" Windows not to work with...

They take their proprietary extensions and use those to communicate with other Microsoft applications. They build pipes for their own apps to use, and then don't publish the interfaces. In that way they make the application not work with other applications.

This is most evident in their Exchange product. Ximian recently released a hack to allow non-windows applications to interact natively with Exchange. This wasn't based on a set of standard that Microsoft released. It's been the result of reverse engineering the protocols that were being passed by outlook. Exchange and IE are not the only tools that the do this way. The OS has hooks that other applications can't get to.

Is this bad? It's not to the end user. But to a software developer, these are sometimes fatal. Especially when you spend money on R&D to figure out what they are doing, and then because it's their interface, they change it.

I might just be a crybaby, but this is just as bad as Microsoft engineering windows to not work with other applications (except in the way they want it to). I have never had this problem with open source software.

Re:Well this guy was an MIT prof

[tenman]

Very well put, and you have a valid point.

However, It is not practical nor cheep for me to change the ground clearence of my Yugo. The reason I have a Yugo in the first place is because I kept hearing about how much nicer life would be if I had a car. I went right down to CompUSA and bought the economy model. Because I have never driven a HUMMER, I am satisfied with the performance of my Yugo. and while I upgraded to the CD player, and put seat covers on, I will probly never change the configuration of my Yugo because
1) I don't know that I can
2) I don't know how
3) I don't know how hard it would be
(seems alot like FUD, now that I think about it)

anyway... the point is, Mr Sixpack, is to ignorent to do anything about the configuration of his machine. Is that a bad thing? Not if all he wants the machine for it Quicken. In that case it's the best thing. But if people where "raised" to look at the GUI and an extension of the OS, then they would be more likely to try to reach under the hood. This is best shown in the Tivo world. People who would NEVER try to open thier computer (because they can just go buy a new one if this one gets to old) are pulling thier Tivo's apart and putting in new harddrives to give them more space.

feloneous cat is right. Upgrade-ism is the in the blood, but it a null point if they don't know that they can.

Re:Well this guy was an MIT prof

[rifter]

I can name a few which were purposefully broken by new versions of Windows and Service Packs. For instance: RealPlayer, Lotus Notes, and Lotus Domino. In fact, Microsoft was recently caught saying they would continue to ensure current versions of RealPlayer would not work with newer versions of Windows. Of course you will say that these applications work fine in Windows, maybe even that you use them in Windows. But the reason you can use them now is that the creators of the applications changed them so they would work with Windows, which does not seem to deter Microsoft's attempts to use dirty tricks and undocumented API's (as documented in the findings of fact you did not read) to trip up competitors.

shells

[mikeee]

You mean there are shells other than emacs??

Re:shells

[egreB]

Nono. Well, emacs maybe a shell, Vi(m) is an whole beach.

Haha. Dunno if that worked in english, though.

Re:shells

[archen]

/usr/bin/perl

Re:shells

[ruin]

Nono. Well, emacs maybe a shell, Vi(m) is an whole beach.

I think you misspelled "bitch."

Or possibly beast.

But

[wiredog]

If I reply to that guy I am not offtopic, in the context of that thread. Just as this post is on topic to your post, which is, however, offtopic to the story.

So you are off topic, but I am on topic, right?

Re:But

[autocracy]

Yes, but I would still vote an off-topic moderation on my comment as fair, and yet the same I would vote an interesting moderation fair as well. So, we're both off-topic, but it doesn't mean we're not interesting as well.

Re:But

[wiredog]

we're both off-topic, but it doesn't mean we're not interesting as well

Story of my life...

Re:But

[Happy Monkey]

Yet more evidence that the +1/-1 and the label should be separate dropboxes.

Re:Don't knock the English majors!

[m_evanchik]

And wou'll be much freer to be unable to find a decent job once you graduate.

On the other hand your classmates will be much cuter.

Life's always a toss up.

Re:browser essential part of os

[Drachemorder]

"but isn't the browser an integral part of the windows os, w/o it you can't even look at your files, etc.?"

No, there's a difference between Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer. Or at least, the states say there should be.

This takes the cake ....

[ProfMoriarty]

Madnick argued that perfect interoperability, which would allow products to be substituted for each other with no performance degradation, was a theoretical impossibility. "It would be surprising if two different products behaved exactly alike," he told the court Wednesday.

Ok then ... so what about the examples that you gave earlier ...

But KDE is a computer program designed to run on top of the Linux operating system, as Hodges pointed out. Madnick conceded that was true, and instead suggested GNOME as an example. But GNOME performs the same function as KDE on a computer equipped with the Linux operating system.

This is VERY funny ... on one hand, it's "theoretical impossibility" to have TWO INDEPENDENT systems that can "be substituted for each other with no performance degradation" ...

Yet he uses the PERFECT example of doing such ... KDE and GNOME.

This stuff is so funny, it writes itself ...

On a bit of a serious note, IS there any performance degradation between KDE and GNOME?

Re:This takes the cake ....

[Lonath]

On a bit of a serious note, IS there any performance degradation between KDE and GNOME?

I have found GNOME apps to be less responsive than KDE apps. I also find it easier to write in KDE than GNOME, so I'm probably biased. Dunno.

Re:gnome and kde aren't OSes

[Gryffin]

Mac OS X? Piece of cake. Drag the MSIE icon to the trash, Empty Trash. Thanks to OS X's application bundles, the entire app in there under that one icon. Couldn't be easier.

Re:browser essential part of os

[nam37]

Actually, you are completely correct.. and nothing is wrong with it except for Microsoft did it, so most people here hate the idea (Don't mention that KDE does it also, the kealots won't link that).

This guy is an MIT Prof?

[the_2nd_coming]

and he does not even know the diffrence between a Shell and an Operating system?

my god, I think he just lost all admiration that he had from his students, and I would not be supprised if the University board reviews his ability to teach at their school

I mean having a CS professor at MIT who cannot distiguish the diffrence brings down the credibility and prestige of the university as a whole.

Re:This guy is an MIT Prof?

[xtremex]

He can't get fired. He has tenior. (Is that how you spell it?)

Dangerous Game

[Remus Shepherd]

Hmmn. I'm not so sure this played against Microsoft. Consider: Gnome and KDE are desktop environments, not OSes. What if MS decides to change its strategy, and claim that IE cannot be separated from the Windows desktop environment? The fact that the desktop environment cannot be separated from the Windows OS wouldn't matter -- MS gets credence for its claim and can legitimately point to other software that does the same thing.

Don't get me wrong, this witness's testimony didn't help MS one bit. But his stumbling may have illuminated a new strategy for MS to pursue.

Re:Dangerous Game

[radja]

soon to come:

KDE for NT kernels..? :)

//rdj

Re:Dangerous Game

[Remus Shepherd]

Can the browser be removed or replaced in Gnome or KDE?

Now, a better question is whether there are any other OSes where the desktop environment cannot be replaced. If others exist (Mac X?), then MS is in the clear -- they have an irreplaceable DE just like other OSes, and that DE happens to have an irreplacable browser just like other DEs. Then this entire argument (not the entire court case, just this argument) is ruled in MS's favor.

What the court should be focussing on, IMHO, is that Windows is not like other OSes -- being a monopoly product, it should be forced to play by stricter rules than the rest of the free market.

Re:Madnick is not an MIT computer science professo

[Rocky]

Yeah, but all three degrees of his are from Course 6, so someone there's to blame...

Of course, they're probably all dead now...

Madnick is *not* a CS prof

[Anonymous Coward]

Madnick is a has-been professor in Course 15, the Sloan business school, and he has nothing at all to do with Course 6-3, the computer science department at MIT. He teaches "MIS" style courses to accountants and economists.

He is most famous for co-authoring the book mostly called "Madnick and Donovan" which was some sort of IBM 360 OS bible back in the way-back days of punch cards.

BTW, it is might be interesting to note that Richard Schmalensee was the MIT professor who humiliated himself on the stand in the first phase of the trial, and he is also a professor of management in the same school at MIT. It's really not a bad school, they only look bad when they whore themselves for Microsoft money

Re:Madnick is *not* a CS prof

[markmoss]

He is most famous for co-authoring the book mostly called "Madnick and Donovan" which was some sort of IBM 360 OS bible back in the way-back days of punch cards.

I think I have a copy of that -- somewhere in those boxes I haven't opened since 1990... IIRC, in that book the _compiler_ was considered part of the OS (it was perfectly normal in 1974 for commercial programs to be sold as source code and compiled for the particular application), but certainly no OS at that time included a GUI at all, and usually even a teletype-style interface for on-line users was considered an add-on, not an integral part of the OS.

STUART E. MADNICK is *NOT* a CS Professor

[Brian_Ellenberger]

I thought this was wierd, so I did some checking on this guy. I looked for him on MIT Electrical Engineering and Computer Science faculty list, but couldn't find him. So I looked him up in the people directory and found this:

name: Madnick, Stuart E email: smadnick@MIT.EDU phone: (617) 253-6671 address: E53-321 department: School Of Mgmt title: J N Maguire Prof Of Info Tech url: http://mit.edu/smadnick/www/home.html

His department is not EECS, it is the School of Management! His research is in areas such as Total Data Quality Management and Productivity From Information Technology. Here is a bio description from his web page:

http://mit.edu/smadnick/www/home.html Madnick finds ways to integrate information systems, giving organizations a more global view of their operations. He is leading a project that develops new technologies for gathering and analyzing information from many different sources, including conventional databases and the World Wide Web. He is also testing these new technologies in industries such as financial services, manufacturing, logistics, and transportation.

Microsoft basically found anyone from MIT they could because it is MIT. I'm surprised they didn't find a janitor from MIT to testify.

Brian Ellenberger

Re:STUART E. MADNICK is *NOT* a CS Professor

[Meech]

true, he is an MIS professor, but, the man still obtained a phd from mit in computer science. If I was MIT I would bitch slap him.

Re:STUART E. MADNICK is *NOT* a CS Professor

[UM_Maverick]

His department may be School of Management, but (as listed in some other posts), his credentials are not exactly shabby:

* BS and MS degrees in Electrical Engineering
* PHD in computer science
* Masters in management
* "author or co-author of over 250 books, articles, or reports including the classic textbook, Operating Systems (McGraw-Hill), and the book, The Dynamics of Software Development (Prentice-Hall). "
* "key designer and developer of projects such as IBM's VM/370 operating system"
* "served as the head of MIT's Information Technologies Group for more than ten years"

I don't know him personally, but I think it's safe to say he's not a traditional PHB...

Re:STUART E. MADNICK is *NOT* a CS Professor

[Havokmon]

He joined the staff in 1972. Therefore, his degrees are from the 60's.

My mom was an RPG programmer in the 80's on 390's and PICK OS...

I suppose if you didn't know her, you'd think she could comment on the current state of programming and operating systems. I'll give you a hint - She hasn't kept up.

Re:STUART E. MADNICK is *NOT* a CS Professor

[JWhitlock]

My mom was an RPG programmer in the 80's on 390's and PICK OS...

HA! I'll see your RPG-programming mom and raise you an RPG programming mother-in-law - but she's still working at it today!

I saw her textbook on a bookshelf and immediately thought Role Playing Games...

Re:STUART E. MADNICK is *NOT* a CS Professor

[Havokmon]

My mom was an RPG programmer in the 80's on 390's and PICK OS...

HA! I'll see your RPG-programming mom and raise you an RPG programming mother-in-law - but she's still working at it today!

HA! I see your trend-setting mother-in-law and I raise you logging into PICK (on said mothers PC at home) to run fdisk to change the boot partition to DOS to play Jeopardy with the chick who babysat across the street!

Who says computers aren't chick magnets?

Re:STUART E. MADNICK is *NOT* a CS Professor

[geekoid]

he has a PhD in Comp. Sci from MIT. He doesn't teach it, he teaches the MISs to be, but he still should know the difference.

Re:STUART E. MADNICK is *NOT* a CS Professor

[JWhitlock]

You: My mom was an RPG programmer in the 80's on 390's and PICK OS...

Me: HA! I'll see your RPG-programming mom and raise you an RPG programming mother-in-law - but she's still working at it today!

You: HA! I see your trend-setting mother-in-law and I raise you logging into PICK (on said mothers PC at home) to run fdisk to change the boot partition to DOS to play Jeopardy with the chick who babysat across the street!

Me: I fold. I worked on an Encore/Gould MPX system last year, FORTRAN code heavily commented in the original French, but I want to save that for a future game.

Random Slashdot Newbie: Did that whole exchange have to be posted with a +1 bonus?

Re:Don't attack the guy..

[BreakWindows]

/A>

Read his answers- you'll see that he's doing his best to tell the truth and give factual information, as opposed to blurt out opinions

Factual information? From the article:

"Hodges asked him to name an operating system besides those made by Microsoft in which the Web browsing software could not be removed. Madnick immediately offered up KDE as an example. But KDE is a computer program designed to run on top of the Linux operating system, as Hodges pointed out. Madnick conceded that was true, and instead suggested GNOME as an example. "

Factual..? KDE is not an operating system, nor is GNOME. Also, one command removes the browser from my machine, while GNOME or KDE are still running no worse for wear. His statements were totally false, and irrelevant anyway.

I do agree partially, though: the guy isn't stupid, and for that reason we shouldn't be laughing. Smart people don't make stupid mistakes, only stupid moves they're paid to make. I'm sure an MIT CS professor who has heard of KDE knows KDE isn't an OS...but he still offered it as an example. There's a reason for it, I'm sure we'll see it soon enough.

well, isn't he right?

[ceswiedler]

Konqi serves the same purpose in KDE/Linux as Internet/Windows Explorer (same thing these days) serves in Windows. It does file management, web browsing, help, and html email rendering. Both do all of this through a component architecture.

What would KDE be without Konq? Same thing as Windows. Not really usable the way it was intended.

The article ribs the witness for calling KDE an operating system. Well, no, KDE is a user interface / window manager / shell sitting on top of the Linux (or other) kernel. Same as Explorer, which is a user interface / window manager / shell on top of the Windows NT kernel (in NT/2000/XP anyway). Perhaps he should have said KDE/Linux, but do we really want to go there?

Re:well, isn't he right?

[klaun]

The article ribs the witness for calling KDE an operating system. Well, no, KDE is a user interface / window manager / shell sitting on top of the Linux (or other) kernel. Same as Explorer, which is a user interface / window manager / shell on top of the Windows NT kernel (in NT/2000/XP anyway). Perhaps he should have said KDE/Linux, but do we really want to go there?

Well, I'll go right out and buy a copy of just the Windows NT kernel with no MS window manager and install that other window manager for the Windows/NT OS from ... um ... Oh I guess there isn't another window manager for MS OS, and come to think of it Microsoft doesn't offer their OS without a Window Manager. Come to think of it they claim a Window Manager is an integral part of an OS. Strange that... guess all those systems with no console don't run an OS.

Re:well, isn't he right?

[Wolfier]

You're correct. I bet MS knows this too - but do you think they're bringing it up to the court, and say, "Yeah, IE is tied to the Explorer shell, and our shell is just like KDE - it can be replaced by 3rd-party shells like LiteStep".

No friggin way :)

Re:well, isn't he right?

[Rogerborg]

• KDE is a user interface / window manager / shell sitting on top of the Linux (or other) kernel. Same as Explorer, which is a user interface / window manager / shell on top of the Windows NT kernel (in NT/2000/XP anyway)

Oh, very insightful. That's the comparison, now let's contrast.

The biggest practical difference that I can see is that KDE won't send round the BSA stormtroopers if I buy a bunch of boxen without KDE/gnu/Linux pre-installed. The biggest theoretical difference is that KDE/gnu/linux is mix and match. Tell me, how do I replace the Explorer shell on an NT kernel box? Take your time answering that.

Re:well, isn't he right?

[windchill2001]

You are incorrect sir. There is a thriving community of developers that have been writing replacement shells for the microsoft operating systems for years. LiteStep, Outsider, revel to name a few. Check out Shell City They have lots of information on it.

Dont be so quick do dismiss alternate shells. I have been using litestep for a while and it is amazing. You have complete control over every aspect of your desktop.

Re:well, isn't he right?

[acroyear]

Come to think of it they claim a Window Manager is an integral part of an OS.

Which is rediculous. Much of the basic window management features (drawing the title bar, grabbing it w/ the mouse and dragging it around) are actually built into a windows app through the development libraries. The only OS ties are how the toolbar shows the icons, and even then, it defers any actions (move, close, etc) back down to the application. The application (well, the windows/mfc library) is in charge of its own ability to move around the desktop.

Which is why when an application hangs in Windows you can't even grab its title bar to move it out of the damn way...

Re:well, isn't he right?

[5KVGhost]

Come to think of it they claim a Window Manager is an integral part of an OS. Strange that... guess all those systems with no console don't run an OS.

No, MS is claiming that a window manager is an integral part of _their_ OS. Which it is, both philosophically and technologically.

That said, there's nothing stopping you from running NT/2000/XP in a command-line-only mode with console apps if you really want to.

And, as others have already pointed out, there are other window managers and alternate shells available for MS Windows, and there have been for quite some time.

Re:well, isn't he right?

[ceswiedler]

Tell me, how do I replace the Explorer shell on an NT kernel box?

Well, isn't that Microsoft's point? The GUI shell (which includes IE) is tied to the OS. They are the same thing as far as the user is concerned. If you told the typical Windows user "you can run Windows, but with this other shell which makes it look and act nothing like Windows" they would stare at you blankly. "That's not Windows."

What is an OS? You guys are limiting the definition to the kernel. Explorer is not tied inextricably to the NT kernel. Explorer IS tied inextricably to Windows.

Great, Linux is better because I can replace the GUI shell. Linux is also better because I can replace the memory manager (via recompiling). Can Windows do that? No. Is it fair for the DOJ to force Microsoft to allow users to replace the MM?

Well, I guess that's the question, isn't it?

Re:well, isn't he right?

[wedg]

What would KDE be without Konq? Same thing as Windows. Not really usable the way it was intended.

I used KDE for about a year, quite happily, without ever touching Konquerer. I'm not sure if I even bothered to install it. It still manages windows. Nice menus. Multiple desktops. Does everything it needs to do. Hell, there are other file browsers out there that you could use if you really need a GUI for that.

Re:well, isn't he right?

[sheldon]

Reading the testimony, at no time does the witness call KDE an operating system. He is very specific calling it a User Interface.

When the lawyers ask if KDE can be removed, he says yes, and then points out that would also remove the functionality of the user interface that the users are relying upon... so it effectively breaks the system.

This is kind of a bizarre play on words. Any reasonable person would recognize that the UI is a necessary piece of a consumer OS, which is likely the position the Judge will take on this. I'd have to say the lawyer's for the states screwed up big by badgering on these points.

Re:well, isn't he right?

[Rogerborg]

• Great, Linux is better because I can replace the GUI shell.

You know better than that. You said so yourself. Linux is the kernel, and only the kernel. It's not the shell, and it's not the GUI. The shell (and command line applications) is not the kernel, and it's not the GUI. The GUI is not the kernel, and it's not the shell. A KDE/gnu/linux system is modular. There are many solutions from many vendors.

• Is it fair for the DOJ to force Microsoft to allow users to replace the MM? Well, I guess that's the question, isn't it?

No, actually that's a straw man. The actual question is whether Microsoft can force (I use the word advisedly) OEM's to install the kernel, shell and GUI, or whether they should be made to modularise parts of this whole. Nobody has (to my knowledge) suggested that they open up the kernel.

finger madnick@mit.edu :: NOT AN MIT CS PROF!

[CaptainAbstraction]

This has been said several times, but must be said
again and again. Madnick is not a computer
science professor at MIT!!!! I find this
frustrating, especially having graduated from MIT
in CS. I'm so sad that this guy is spoiling the
reputation of the MIT CS department.

He teaches management!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[686 parkerlocal@waikiki Documentation]$ finger madnick@mit.edu
[mit.edu]
...

There was 1 match to your request.

name: Madnick, Stuart E
email: smadnick@MIT.EDU
phone: (617) 253-6671
address: E53-321
department: School Of Mgmt
title: J N Maguire Prof Of Info Tech
url: http://mit.edu/smadnick/www/home.html
alias: S-madnick

Nice try...

[shaldannon]

It should be, but Microsoft and Netscape broke the standards. I think a better example would be hardware systems...e.g., I can interchange most standard networking gear all day long and things will still work. Thank heaven Microsoft hasn't yet broken most of the hardware standards...My M$ keyboard works just fine with Linux (well, except for those dumb browser buttons hardwired onto the board)

Re:Nice try...

[shaldannon]

The point is valid. Actually the example of browsers really is a better one in some respects since it reinforces the idea that things should be standardized and when they aren't because someone [hint:Microsoft] decides to do things their own way, things don't work well.

Re: Good Bill Hunting

[BreakWindows]

I'm surprised they didn't find a janitor from MIT to testify.

Do you like Apple Macintosh?
*shrugs*
Well I got the highest mah-ket share. Howd'ya like dem Apples?

Re:how hard could it be to remove the brower, anyw

[Xzzy]

Apparently, it can be done with a 100k zip file, for free.

Feh

[Greyfox]

I would think that all you'd have to do to replace the browser would be to code your replacement to export the same APIs that IE does. If those APIs were documented, replacing the browser would be simple -- the Mozilla people probably would have already coded to those APIs if they were available. The desktop should just call an API to perform browsing functions. It should not care who wrote the program providing the API.

Seems to me all you'd have to do is force MS to publically document the API. Actually they should be forced to document APIs, file formats and protocols BEFORE their products are released, and they should be compelled to use only protocols and formats unencumbered by patents or copyrights (for things like XML DTDs.) The documentation should be unencumbered by any license and should be freely available on their web site for all to download.

Where are the transcripts?

[QuantumG]

Man I'm sick of these court room reports. Take off the bias, hand me the dead cow. Where are the transcripts? I'll read it myself and see whether this (business school) Prof was really a clueby or whether the state's attorney was playing semantic games. After all, what _is_ an operating system? He refers to Linux as being one.. what? Linux is a kernel!

He's NOT a CS professor

[Pachooka-san]

If you check Stuart Madnick's homepage, he's not a CS professor. He's a professor of management. Need I say more?

Re:finger madnick@mit.edu :: NOT AN MIT CS PROF!

[shaldannon]

So much for journalistic integrity...

"I'm not trying to be evasive," Stuart E. Madnick, a computer science professor at MIT, said at one point. "I'm just trying to be precise." (from the linked article).

Similarly,

Stuart Madnick, a computer science professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, backed up Microsoft's position that features like the Internet Explorer Web browser and its media player are not discrete programs. They are made up of many separate files that are dependent on each other, he said. (from Nando Times)

I'm guessing whoever did the basic research (AP is credited on the Nando article, didn't see an attribution on the CNN one) didn't do their homework, or else Madnick is claiming to be a CS prof. If the former is true, then it is a lesson to be careful accepting what journalists say. If the latter, it's entirely possible that Madnick is perjuring himself by asserting credentials he doesn't posses.

Re:how hard could it be to remove the brower, anyw

[leuk_he]

This has been bugging me forever.
This is saying more about you than the problem...
remove the browser from the OS, they just need to disable it
Not true. A withness of the 9 states said that leaving the programming interfaces there woule let the programmers use it, making it hard for competiters to get into the market.
If the world's largest and most powerful software company can't figure out how to do this

the most powerful software company still manages to crash my machine. If they cannot figure out how to solve this..... (Mainframe companies figured this out)

getting big business to pay them millions of dollars to manage their mission critical software?
Sounds like marketing.

Whoever modded you insighedful must be on a bad day, funny would have been OK.

Try something else

[shaldannon]

If IE is such an integral component to the OS, why are there Mac and Solaris versions? I guarantee that those versions aren't essential to the OS they run on :)

Re:Try something else

[sean23007]

Maybe there are versions for other operating systems so that Microsoft can spread their influence to people who do not have the Windows OS. They did not have to port the browser, but they did because they want people to see how great it is, and perhaps consider the Windows OS because of the prominence of IE within it. And don't think it was the easiest thing in the world to port IE to other systems, considering the fact that they were not allowed to take the same liberties that they were allowed to take in the Windows world. Note that I am pointing out the fact that it was an admirable thing MS did to port IE at all; however it was somewhat dickheaded of them to make it possible to take shortcuts and only make such shortcuts available to themselves...

"House of cards"

[Keith Russell]

How's this for a ringing endorsement of Microsoft's products?

[Madnick] showed the judge a diagram that depicted Windows as a system made up of dozens of oddly shaped, interconnected pieces. Madnick said the diagram showed how Windows was like a "house of cards" that could collapse if any of the pieces were removed.

Emphasis mine. Source: ZDNet: Microsoft's MIT prof gets grilled by states

Mind you, this was a witness for Microsoft. Amazing. Microsoft is so arrogant, it can claim gross incompetence to avoid incrimination, and still look forward to getting away with it.

Re:"House of cards"

[RickHunter]

Not only that, but Microsoft's supporters will claim gross incompetence and ignorance of the basic principles of software design on the part of Microsoft in their attempts to explain why Microsoft cannot be punished... And then turn around and tell you that this shoddily-designed, poorly-written, bloated mess of code that can't have any bits taken out without dire consequences is not only a viable operating system, but the only viable operating system.

Seems that they get away with a lack of compartmentalization in software by encouraging their supporters to compartmentalize their minds. =P

Re:"House of cards"

[sulli]

I bet we see that in the Oracle and Sun ads within a week.

Apples and Oranges

[JPriest]

Windows is a GUI system with emulated DOS. Linux is a kernel, shell, X, then a windowing system. There are multiple layers involved where you are free to build on one as you please. Explorer is a larger more integrated part of what is known as windows. I, like BeOS really don't see the problem with MS making explorer part of windows because that's what works for performance. I have my gripes about the way MS does some things but this is not one of them. To me this is kind of like going after the mafia for tax evasion, if it's the only thing that holds water go with it.

Re:Madnick is not an MIT computer science professo

[brlewis]

Confusion may arise from his title (as listed in the MIT directory), "J N Maguire Prof Of Info Tech".

Re:But what *is* an operating system?

[i0lanthe]

In this sense, Linux/KDE and Linux/GNOME both constitute OSes on which the web browser cannot be removed.

Except that someone else has already argued above that, in the case of KDE, it can. And probably by the time I post someone will say the same for Gnome.

I'm afraid I can't comment on which of you folks is actually right... since I use Linux/twm (fear my l33t "operating system" :-).

KDE without Konq

[Jason H. Smith]

I use KDE for everything but Konqueror. To use the web, I use Mozilla, and to do file management, I'd rather just drop to a shell.

Otherwise, I love all the integration I can (selectively) get from environments like KDE and GNOME. It's perfectly usable without Konq or Galeon/Nautilus/Etc.

I agree that it is fair to compare KDE with the Windows user environment. But then you see that KDE already does everything that these guys are fighting over; any software can be compiled out of the system, and it's already broken up into major componets for you.

Write an article . . .

[himi]

Write your own article outlining all this and giving your analysis of what's going on, and submit /that/ to /. - you may have more luck getting heard that way . . .

Lots of interesting quotes, by the way - kudos ;-)

himi

Re:how hard could it be to remove the brower, anyw

[scrytch]

I think the bigger question is why should they?

But anyway, it's done already. HTML viewing is separate from HTTP implementation -- they're two different DLL's. Disabling the icon is a checkbox in settings. In a company, it can be an automatic policy, that icon will never appear. It's not only not hard for MS, it's not hard for any OEM. The contract for not allowing the OEM to not disable the icon is a little funky until you realize that the shell is explorer, and this is internet explorer. It'd be like removing explorer as the shell. MS thrives on projecting an image of consistency (not that they succeed all that wildly, but the metaphors remain the same), and customization by the OEM makes the consumer think that Microsoft did it.

I'm posting this from mozilla on win32, which won me over on its own merits -- took it a while, but it didn't need to take down MS in the meantime. I still have that big bad blue 'e' on my desktop, but somehow it hasn't yet compelled me to click on it.

BTW, how do you suggest the user download a patch to make IE work when they don't have a means of getting it? Or is FTP good enough to satisfy the crippling?

Damn, I'm steamed. I think I'll change my sig to something pro-microsoft soon.

Re:MS withdrawing witnesses

[dipfan]

There's a very good reason why Microsoft has withdrawn its witnesses: the states aren't allowed to introduce "new" evidence, and so were hoping to raise some 14 rather embarassing documents from Microsoft with MS employees. So MS withdrew the witnesses, and now the states can't raise the documents (it seems). Great tactic, it has made the states' lawyers look foolish.

There has been a couple of news items about this, there's one from the FT here - it says:

Lawyers for the nine litigating US states in the Microsoft antitrust remedy hearings yesterday appeared to have been comprehensively out-manoeuvered by their counterparts defending the software giant, after the Microsoft legal team decided to halve the number of defence witnesses it would call.

In particular, Microsoft's decision not to call Richard Fade, its executive in charge of relations with computer manufacturers, means the states' lawyers will probably not be able to enter critical evidence before the court.

This is the latest blow to the states' case. Earlier in the hearings, their lawyers misunderstood rules about how new witnesses should be called, leaving them without key testimony.

Great news, huh?

Re:how hard could it be to remove the brower, anyw

[scrytch]

Not true. A withness of the 9 states said that leaving the programming interfaces there woule let the programmers use it, making it hard for competiters to get into the market.

So, speaking as a developer, you're not really interested in freeing me, you really want to control me. Screw you. You just lost my support. Utterly.

You do realize that mozilla for win32 also uses MS's API's? At least I'm presuming so, unless they re-implemented outlook, ms-help, and vs URL's on their own.

I try to keep reminding myself that slashdot does not represent the general population ... then find out the states are even worse.

The truly surprising thing

[SwiftOne]

I'm not surprised that an MS witness didn't have perfect understanding of a different software paradigm.

I am surprised (pleasantly) that the lawyer recognized and was able to deal with the situation. I mean, sure, I have little doubt that the lawyers have been briefed, but this lawyer:

• Had to know that GNOME and KDE existed
• Had to know what they were, generally
• Had to understand that the answer was wrong
• Had to be able to articulate that the answer was wrong, with enough accuracy/confidence to have a witness with Comp Sci experience admit his error

I haven't been wowwed by this trial (I think MS has stiffled the industry, and I think the charges have focused on the wrong elements of MS behavior), but I am pleased to see that the legal staff has assumed an apparently comfortable amount of non-MS technical familiarity. This is a rare bit of good foreshadowing for future technical cases.

So what?

[The Silver Slurper]

I really can't believe that we're still arguing about browser bundling in Windows. This point may have been significant 5 years ago, but the battle has been over for awhile.

KDE and GNOME may not be "operating systems" in the strictest sense of the term, but for the end-user they form the most critical and recognizable part of the operating system: the desktop. What part of Linux is the OS anyway? Is it the underlying kernel that provides support for your hardware and devices? Is it the set of GNU system tools and utilities that you use to maintain your system? Is it the window manager and desktop shell?

Linux was designed to be more modular than Windows, but this additional freedom and flexibility come at a price. What parts of a bundled Linux distribution can be removed or replaced by other work-alike components? Almost everything, but when modern applications come to depend on the existence of other "operating system" components, the complexity of setting up a system can increase exponentially. The operating system itself, however, is not useful in the general sense; it is only necessary. For a computer to be useful, you need applications.

Microsoft has chosen the route of providing a consistent base of OS and applications which are always installed and, in some cases, cannot be easily removed. Consider this the lowest-common denominator approach that bundles every basic tool that the average computer user may need. This includes (in Windows XP): video and audio player/editor (Media Player, Sound Recorder, Movie Maker), basic text editor (Notepad and Wordpad), e-mail (Outlook Express), web browser (Internet Explorer), file manager (Explorer), image/photo viewer/editor (Picture Viewer and Paintbrush), and communications software(Hyperterminal and MSN Instant Messenger) among other things.

Out of all of these commonly bundled applications (after all what desktop OS distribution doesn't include one of these applications in some form or another), the web browser has assumed a unique and important role in the modern computing environment. It has transcended its role as a mere user application and has become a vital system component that other applications have come to rely on. Will your operating system work without a web browser? Yes but, as I stated earlier, the operating system *doesn't matter*.

People use computers to get work done. Work is done by using applications. Applications rely on the operating system to provide basic system services. HTML and HTTP have become basic system services for a large number of applications to provide online help systems, downloadable updates and enhancements, and even application user interface. Because a web browser is included as part of the operating system, Windows application vendors can rely on its existence to provide features to their own applications. Is this not, after all, the entire purpose of the operating system?

The states and the DOJ can force Microsoft's hand and make them remove Internet Explorer from the operating system, but does this really make any sense? Users have always had the ability to use another browser when they surf the web, but an integrated HTML rendering engine and HTTP protocol implementation that it guaranteed to be bundled with the OS makes so much damn sense I really, truly don't understand what all the fuss is about.

Did you see his Microsoft projects?

[Kris Warkentin]

Co-Director, PRoductivity From Information Technology (PROFIT) Program: http://mitsloan.mit.edu/research/profit/index.html

Co-Principal Inbestigator, COntext INtercharge (COIN) project: http://context.mit.edu/~coin/

PROFIT and COIN - yep. Must be a Microsoft shill.

standards

[mach-5]

"Madnick argued that perfect interoperability, which would allow products to be substituted for each other with no performance degradation, was a theoretical impossibility."

No, it is not a theoretical impossibility, it is called a "standard", and there are hundreds of groups out there working hard to create these.

Missed in the hubbub

[rgmoore]

It seems to me that one point that's been missed in the hubbub about whether KDE and GNOME are desktop environments or part of the operating system is that the witness was wrong about the web browsers' removability. It's quite possible to pull remove the web browser from either KDE or GNOME. If I decide that Konqueror is taking up valuable space that should be saved for Mozilla, I can just rpm -e kdeaddons-konqueror and it's gone. Similarly I can remove galeon with rpm -e galeon. I'll lose some functionality by doing so, true, but neither one is so deeply entwined into the system that it's unremovable.

Re:But what *is* an operating system?

[Raphael]

[...] ALL together forming the OS. In this sense, Linux/KDE and Linux/GNOME both constitute OSes on which the web browser cannot be removed.

There must be something wrong with my PC at home, then. I am running GNOME on my old PC and I did not install Nautilus, Mozilla or Galeon because they take too much disk space. Nothing prevented me from installing my GNOME system without these components. I do have lynx and the old Netscape 4.x installed, but I can remove them or replace them at any time because they are not integrated with the desktop environment.

So even if you consider Linux/KDE or Linux/GNOME as the "whole OS", you still get a system that allows you to remove or replace the browser at any time.

Degree != competence

[Srin Tuar]

C'mon, a doctorate in comp sci from MIT, with just one management degree compared to the 3 EE/comp sci degrees. He must know something about the subject, if not to the specific degree slashdot would like, but maybe we're not getting the whole story.

Why does everyone assume that a degree in something makes you competent? I admit, at first, I myself was intimidated when I had to interview a PH.D for a software position. I was expecting to be amazed, or at least impressed. Sadly that was not the case. The man was functionally illiterate in the skills listed on his resume.

Now I know one cant judge society from first person perspective, but in my experience skill is inversely proportional to education. For the record Ive never met a PHd who was not an idiot.

Re:Degree != competence

[btellier]

Because this isn't PoDunk Community College and Rib House we're talking about. MIT is the most respected technical college in the world. They don't accept idiots and they don't give PHD's to the incompetent. Say whatever you want about this guy's motivations, but don't question his abilities in the areas he has studied.

The Dead Cow

[QuantumG]

You can read the whole transcript on the Microsoft web site:

Q. You mentioned in paragraph 20 TCP/IP. Could you tell us what is TCP/IP?
A. Well, the initials stand for transmission control protocol slash Internet protocol, and these are the two primary protocols used in the Internet for computers to communicate with each other.
Q. Is TCP/IP something that is part of the operating system or part of the Web browser?
A. In... I guess I would say part of the operating system in the sense as this section has illustrated, the functionality of operating systems have constantly increased over the past decades, and I believe almost every operating system, commercial operating system, I know of today provides TCP/IP whether or not, because -- if I can -- there are many other functions, such as FTP and others, that rely upon IP in order to do their job.
So there are many other functions besides browsing that operating systems rely upon these things, so therefore it would have to be part of the operating system.
Q. As part of the operating system in Windows 95, is that your testimony?
A. It was added, as I mentioned, over time. I don't -- I believe it was added into Windows 95. I forgot exactly which version it was added into.
Q. And in the current version of windows today, it's part of the operating system and not part of the Web browser. Is that your testimony?
A. As I said, as in many other -- most other commercial operating systems, I believe it is part of the key functions of the operating system.
Q. Let's turn if we could to paragraph 22 of your testimony, which is at page 11. Professor, at paragraph 22 you mention IBM's OS/2 Warp 3 operating system. Do you see that.
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And you say that IBM's OS/2 Warp operating system included Web browsing software. Do you see that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Was the OS/2 Web browser removable without impairing the functionality of the IBM operating system?
A. I do not know that. I did not study that aspect. My point in this section was to illustrate that these functionalities are included in operating systems in various ways.
Q. Since you don't know about OS/2, is there any other operating system you're aware of in which the Web browsing functionality is commingled with the operating system?
A. Yes, I do, if we take the view that the Web browsing functionality is also relied upon in other parts of the operating system.
Q. Which operating systems would those be?
A. Well, some examples, and there may be many others, would be the KDE user interface or GUI that exists on the Linux operating system.
Q. Now, KDE is not an operating system; correct?
A. I think I -- every definition in this court it would be middleware, in which case it would be a platform software.
Q. KDE is the graphic user interface, graphical user interface, for the Linux operating system; is that correct?
A. Yes. It's one of the interfaces available.
Q. It can be removed and replaced; correct?
A. Well, it can be -- if it is removed, of course, by -- if it's just removed, then the user will not be able to use the system. You could replace it by others and, in fact, most of the others I'm aware of likewise have, as you would call it, commingled Web browsing with their functionality.
Q. In Windows can you remove the graphical user interface?
THE COURT: Are you talking about now?
MR. HODGES: Today, correct.
A. As I understand -- I believe it's either yes or will soon be. I believe the provision that the Microsoft has agreed to as part of the settlement is that the end user would be able to remove access to the browser, if that was your question.
Q. My question is: Can the graphical user interface of Windows be removed?
A. I'm sorry. No, I do not believe so. It would no longer be Windows.
Q. Has it ever been the case that the graphical user interface of Windows could be removed?
A. I guess the answer might be yes in the sense, as I said again in this session, at one time operating systems had no graphical interface at all if you go back to essentially the original MS-DOS. So this is the examples of the kinds of functionality that operating systems have increasingly provided to users to enhance their effectiveness. So, yes, there was a point in time where it did not exist and there's a point in time where it was added to the operating system.
Q. If KDE is removed from the Linux operating system, then its Web browsing functionality is also removed; is that correct?
A. Well, the Web browsing that's provided through the interface is removed, yes.
Q. The Web browsing provided through KDE; correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. Now, you say that, in paragraph 24 -- it's actually on page 12, paragraph 24. I'll read this to you. "One cannot delete the Web browser from KDE without losing the ability to manage files on the user's own hard disk." Do you see that language?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Now, isn't it the case that files can be managed by using standard UNIX command in the shell even if KDE is not installed?
A. That is correct. The assumption here was we are talking about the user using the system as a modern operating system which requires access to this kind of interface.
Q. We've talked about Windows and we've talked about the KDE interface, and my question is: Can you name any operating system, other than Windows, that commingles a Web browser with the operating system?
A. I have not attempted to identify all the others. As I indicate in this whole section, these are examples of the kinds of innovative features that vendors constantly add to the systems. Some have reached that stage of benefiting from the kinds of interactions possible, some have not. These are the ones I've identified as part of the study so far.
Q. Based on your experience as a computer scientist and as a Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, are you aware of any operating system, other than Windows, that binds the Web browser into the operating system? MR. LACOVARA: I'll object. We have now shifted from commingling to binding without a definition. It may have just been inadvertent on Mr. Hodges' part.
MR. HODGES: It was inadvertent, and I appreciate that clarification.
Q. If I change the word from "binding" to "commingling," let me ask you, are you aware of any operating system, other than Windows, that commingles a Web browser with the operating system?
MR. LACOVARA: I would object to that. I think it's the third time he's asked the question. Asked and answered. THE COURT: I'll let him to proceed. But this is the last time.
A. Okay. If I recall the question, I think I answered it in terms of identifying KDE and I believe GNOME, which is another interface on Linux, also has the Web browser functionality integrated. So those are two examples. And, once again, this was not an attempt to exhaustively study all the others or systems that are under development today.
Q. GNOME is a -- it's spelled G-N-O-M-E; correct?
A. That's correct, yes.
Q. It's not the way most people would pronounce that word. GNOME is also a graphical user interface for Linux; correct.
A. That is correct. It provides that kind of functionality.
Q. And it is also, like KDE, a removable graphical user interface for Linux; correct?
A. It's removable in the sense if you remove it you no longer have access to a graphical user interface.
Q. It's not an operating system; correct?
A. Well, it is part of what we described as middleware under the understanding of the terms being used, and we go from there.
Q. I'll try to stay in order, but I need to flip back to page 11 and paragraph 23 if I could. You say in the second sentence --
A. I'm sorry. What page?
Q. I'm sorry. It's page 11, paragraph 23. I can tell you, Professor, it also appears up there on the monitor in front of you, so whatever is easier for you is fine.
THE COURT: The small monitor has it, too.
THE WITNESS: It's sometimes helpful to see the context. That's why I like to look at the documents.
BY MR. HODGES:
Q. The second line of paragraph 23 -- the second sentence, I'm sorry -- you say that Windows, like all commercial operating systems of which I am aware, ships with a simple text editor, Notepad in the case of Windows, that is a relatively self-contained block of code that is easily removable. What's the basis for that statement?
A. It's a long sentence. Is there some particular part of it you're having a question about?
Q. Yes. I want to know what's the basis for your statement that the Notepad is easily removable?
A. The fact that there is a file -- I can't remember it's name, but it's probably something like Notepad.exe -- that in theory one could delete without having any other effects upon the operating system.
Q. Is this based on your review of the Windows XP source code?
A. Not specifically.
Q. Professor, have you had an opportunity to review the direct testimony of Robert Short of Microsoft?
A. I have seen it.
Q. Mr. Short is the vice president of Windows core
technologies. Does that sound right to you?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. Are you aware that Mr. Short testified that there are
cross-dependencies between the Notepad and Internet Explorer?
A. After I wrote my report, I believe I remembered hearing
that mentioned in his report or his testimony. Yes the answer
is.
Q. Do you disagree with Mr. Short?
A. I assume he knows much more about the internals of Windows
than I do. I believe my point may still be true, although I've
not consulted with him, in that I believe the removable of
Notepad does not impact any other part of the system.
I believe in his testimony -- I think he was trying to
illustrate that other parts -- using my earlier diagram of HTML
Renderer, for example, or Shell Doc Viewer -- that removal of
other parts of the middleware that might seem to be unrelated
might cause Notepad to fail.
Am I clear on the duality here or the differences? Am
I clear on the differences that removing Notepad may not cause
other parts of the system to fail, but that removing other
parts of the system that may appear to be file removed from
Notepad might cause Notepad to fail. I think that is two
different issues.
Q. Are you aware that Mr. Short used the term
cross-dependencies?
A. I don't recall what exact term he used.
Q. If there are cross-dependencies, doesn't that apply that
Notepad relies on Internet Explorer and Internet Explorer
relies on Notepad?
A. I can't speak for him.
Q. Is that what the term cross-dependencies means to you?
A. That would be a one interpretation, yes.
Q. And if there are cross-dependencies, wouldn't it be the
case that removing Notepad would affect other parts of the
Windows operating system product?
A. That might be true. I was only trying to give a simple
example here. If that one doesn't apply I'll have to find some
other example.
Q. I take it you were not aware of any cross-dependency involving the Notepad?
A. No, I was not.
Q. Is there any technical reason that there needs to be a cross-dependency between the Notepad and Internet Explorer?
A. As I said, this is not an area that I have studied. If you would like me to speculate or to try to conjure up a reason, I could try to do so, but it would be totally ad hoc thinking.
Q. I don't want you to speculate. I want to ask if you are aware of any technical reason that there needs to be a cross-dependency between the Notepad and Internet Explorer? And if you don't know, that's acceptable.
A. What might be helpful is the realization based upon my many years trying to understand all of the inter-dependencies that go on in a complex product is extremely difficult, and often I've been quite surprised myself to realize that one part of the system was able to make use of another part.
So, you know, with some careful thought it is possible I might find that there actually is a reason for cross- dependencies. But it was not something that immediately came to mind.
Q. So you could speculate that, but you don't know. Is that an accurate summary?
A. As I've said, I have not studied that issue.
Q. Now, you have reviewed the Windows XP source code; correct?
A. Yes, I have. Though I will not say I've looked at every 36 million or so lines of code carefully.
Q. Is it 36 million or 39 million?
A. As I said, a million here, a million there, it adds up after a while I guess.
Q. Pretty soon you're talking about real lines of code?
A. Exactly.
Q. What exactly have you done?
A. The main purpose of looking -- once again, given both the limited amount of time and the size, was really to better understand the way in which a system was modularized, the way in which it's broken up into individual routines and the types of interdepencies that exist, so it's more to get a feel for the overall structure of the system.
Q. Is there any way you can quantify how much effort was involved in your review of the Windows XP source code?
A. Physical amount of time, probably 8 or 10 hours.

Re:The Dead Cow

[sheldon]

Interesting reading...

Clearly this witness was a lot more intelligent and knowledgeable than the slashbot responses suggest.

With regards to some of the final questioning there on the cross dependencies between Notepad and IE, I think the most obvious thing is if you were to delete Notepad from the system... View-Source would no longer function within IE. So yes, Mr. Short from Microsoft was technically correct.

Is there a technical need for the cross dependency? Well assuming we are talking specifically about View->Source. Then yes, in so much as the browser needs to have some way to display the source. The method must be well known, and exist at the time IE is installed to the system, or installed in conjunction with IE. Notepad is an obvious choice. Otherwise, the IE team would have to recreate this functionality within the program.

Can it be done? Yes. Is it a technical desirable solution? No... application modularity is very desirable and makes development more efficient instead of constantly recreating the wheel.

Re:The Dead Cow

[sheldon]

IE doesn't use the Default HTML Editor for the View Source functionality.

On my machine that would be UltraEdit... On other machines that might be Frontpage. But in all cases the source still appears using Notepad.

"It is also ludicrous to claim Notepad relies on IE!"

No, you just don't understand the point.

Re:The Dead Cow

[sheldon]

It's not clear to me why exactly that's a better solution.

While I do like configurability occasionally, I think it can go too far. For the purpose of viewing the source all you need is a fairly lightweight editor, and notepad fits that bill.

Now let's assume the state's get their way and notepad.exe can no longer be distributed with Windows. Then you run into a situation where you are installing IE to this clean machine... notepad doesn't exist, nor does any other editor or viewer. So what would IE use?

Nothing... the functionality would be broken, which does not lend to a pleasant user experience.

I honestly see no reason why this feature needs any sort of configuration option, as that only serves to complicate the user experience.

Re:The Dead Cow

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I honestly see no reason why this feature needs any sort of configuration option, as that only serves to complicate the user experience.

Tell that to someone who is visually impaired, and uses a specialist text editor instead of Notepad, for example.

That point is moot, however. The relevant point is that there is no technical reason why IE and Notepad have to be integrated, and that it would be trivial both in theory and practice to separate them. That shoots a huge hole right through the MS argument.

Not difficult... In fact...

[sheldon]

That capability is going to be part of Windows XP SP1, as part of Microsoft's desire to conform to the DOJ settlement.

The States aren't asking for that... they want all of IE removed, the rendering engine used by Explorer, the help system, everything. Why? Well nobody is quite sure about that.

Gee Whiz, Imagine That..

[multipartmixed]

..a university professor who is ignorant of the real world. Never met one of those before...

Focusing on the wrong issue

[g_bit]

Why do OEM's care so much about altering the desktop? It's M$'s product, the OEM's shouldn't be allowed to mess with it.

The fact that you can't be a licensed Windows PC Provider AND sell naked PC's or PC's with Linux or ANY OTHER OS on them when you sign the contract with Microsoft is the issue they should be looking at.

If I told you that you could sell PC's with Mandrake on them but if you signed up to do so were then legally inable to sell naked PC's or PC's with Windows on them you'd be pissed too.

Re:Focusing on the wrong issue

[mwa]

I think it was HP that testified during the trial that after MS forced them to stop their modifications of the default install, their support desk took a massive hit on the number of customer calls. The OEM is the first line of support for customer problems. They have a vested interest in providing an interface that minimizes user problems. Microsoft doesn't. If anyone calls them for support, they direct them to the OEM or charge them for a support call.

Re:Focusing on the wrong issue

[nathanh]

Why do OEM's care so much about altering the desktop?

Because they want to distinguish themselves from the other OEMs.

It's M$'s product, the OEM's shouldn't be allowed to mess with it.

It's Microsoft's component of the OEM's product. You need to see this distinction before it all makes sense.

When I buy a computer from Dell the entire computer system is the product. I'm not paying for the "Windows product": Windows is just one component (of many) in the product I'm buying from Dell.

The OEMs have been value-adding software for years. For example the OEM might decide to throw in some fax software, imaging software, administration software, a handful of games, a web browser...

Back up a minute. The OEM can't throw in a web browser because Microsoft is claiming that only Microsoft has the right to include a web browser. This is what the court case is all about: Microsoft using their monopoly status to destroy competition in the browser market.

Cast your mind back to when this all started. It was IE 2 versus Navigator 2. IE 2 was so goddamn shit that nobody wanted to use it. Even when IE was bundled on the Windows 95 disc (OEM version only: the store version did not have IE anywhere on the disc) people would download Netscape because Netscape was (a) better, and (b) had mind-share. Microsoft couldn't compete on merit so they bullied their way into the market through licensing. The OEMs were forced to ship IE in preference to Navigator, even though their customers wished otherwise. How is this good for the customer? Answer: it isn't.

Right now it's all different because Microsoft has had 5 (6?) years to well and truly entrench IE into Windows. So now it's not only difficult to remove IE but there's no benefit anymore: IE really is better than Navigator now. Microsoft is banking on the short attention span of the consumer to not remember what they did to Netscape, and it seems people like you are suckered right in.

Re:Focusing on the wrong issue

[nathanh]

Right, and it's Microsoft's component that Dell signed an contract to package on it's computers. Part of the contract was that you don't mess with the Windows component because you didn't create it. It's not Microsoft's fault that Dell signed the silly agreement.

Illegal contracts are not binding. Contracts that you are coerced into signing are not binding. Just because it's a contract doesn't mean the Dell has foregone their rights, nor that Microsoft has gained the right to do illegal things.

Because Microsoft did act illegally. That was stated in the findings of facts and it has been upheld by the appeals court. The law says that Microsoft was not allowed to tell the OEMs to drop Netscape Navigator. The judge found that Microsoft is a monopoly. The law says that monopolies cannot use their privilege in an anti-competitive way. Microsoft broke the law; contract or no contract.

I do remember what they did to Netscape (they muscled them out and replaced them with a better product) but I don't care, and I'm not a sucker for using IE, as you stated yourself it's a better product and I'd only be using Netscape to spite Microsoft.

IE6 might be the bees knees but this doesn't excuse past illegal activities. The court case is about illegal acts that Microsoft did several years ago: the DOJ is not trying to determine whether IE is a better browser than Netscape today.

You'd think he could wing it

[PhilHibbs]

and say something like "I believe Microsoft Windows is the only major operating system that streamlines the user experience in this way".

A simple request

[Our Man In Redmond]

Would everyone who wishes to point out that Stuart Madnick is a business professor, and not a computer science professor, please check in at the desk, take a number, and wait in line over there along the far wall?

Thank you.

If I was sane

[wiredog]

would I be here?

IANAL....

[Dutchmaan]

nut it appears to me that maybe the lawyers on both sides should be reading /. for unique insights into the days testimony...

what better legal assistants could lawyers ask for in a tech case than an enourmous group of grassroots people actually involved *in* the tech industry. I get more rational info (both sides) from this site than from the all the tech news out there.

How ironic! (his homepage)

[cnvogel]

From his homepage:

(title)Personal Home Page(/title)

(meta NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="Mozilla/3.01Gold (Win95; I) [Netscape]")

Of course it would...

[cnelzie]

If you didn't know anything about MS Word, then you shouldn't bother continuing to live. MS Word is the basis of our modern society. Without MS Word, we Couldn't have the US Constitution! Without MS Word, we wouldn't have wonderful, powerful laws like the DMCA.

Geeze, they even teach MS Word in school these days. MS Word is the only application that you are allowed to even write in. I think that they should outlaw every other method of generating text. Especially that dreadfully awful and bland thing called "vi" and that other one called "emacs". I mean who the heck wants to use a word processor with a name like either of those?

My mouth feels funny just saying those words...

(Of course, if you wish to buy a bridge. I happen to own a few that I would be willing to sell...) :)

--

Not So Uncommon for ex-MS employees...

[freeBill]

...who go off and start their own businesses and use MS developer-assistance funds (well, I think they used them). I believe Microsoft still has a stake in them as well.

Real Player was founded by people who left MS, and we should not be surprised they used some Microsoft tactics. (Of course, they were surprised when MS used those tactics on them. But those who live by the sword....)

You are correct, however, in identifying this as an important question of ethics which is all-too-prevalent in the industry. Maybe a code of ethics for coders is what we need.

Re:yeah, and...

[markmoss]

shouldn't that headline read: "Witness for MS caught dissembling"?

Only by pretending to be an expert when the only OS he knows is Windows...

Now Wait A Second...

[matth]

Before we say this guy has no clue.. maybe he's smarter then we're giving him credit. Indeed he meantioned KDE and GNOME. They are nothing but WMs running on top of Linux. Just like WIN95 was nothing but a file manager / WM running on top of DOS!! Perhaps tha'ts all Win2000 is and DOS is just masked really well? eh?

Re:Now Wait A Second...

[linuxrunner]

So what's Gnomes web browser that can not be removed.. eh?

Teaches vocational computer science

[peter303]

MIT has a disconnect between theoretical and practical computer science. The courses in the computer science department (part of EE Couse VI) are theoretical and not highly useful for immediate employment. For example the required course for all EE and CS majors use the computer language Scheme, a OO version of LISP (for over 30 years). If you want anything practical- you take scientific computing such as C++ or Java in an engineering department or business computing in the Sloan Business school (Course 15). I took courses in both departments, including Madnick's, for intellectual and practical reasons. Over the years the practical courses become less relavant because languages change so much.

a 30 year old degree as proof of knowledge?

[Havokmon]

As if someone could get a job designing Microwave Ovens with a 30 year old EE degree.

Someone like that would make a good college professor..

Oh.

None of this is hard

[epepke]

Look. Microsoft is lying. It's really that simple. There's no point in discussing how hard it could be, because the statement that it's impossible or even hard is false. There's no need to wonder about it, either. Microsoft sticks to this because it obfuscates the fact that they prevented OEM's from putting a Netscape icon on the desktop back in the day, not due to any technical problems but rather due to a business decision. All they have to do is convince a judge or delay a judgement. If they delay it long enough, it doesn't matter, because they've move on to other things.

Smirking misses the point

[blamanj]

If, as others have pointed out, you actually read the transcript, you'll see that he does indeed know the difference between an OS and a GUI.

It also becomes clear, that the Microsoft strategy is simply to confuse the court, since it is undoubtedly not clear to the judge, what exactly is kernel, application, middleware, etc. All MS wants to do is muddy the waters so much that the judge will be over-cautious.

As an example, it appears from the transcript that Microsoft had previously claimed "crossdependency" between IE and Notepad.

Q. Are you aware that Mr. Short used the term
cross-dependencies?
A. I don't recall what exact term he used.
Q. If there are cross-dependencies, doesn't that apply that
Notepad relies on Internet Explorer and Internet Explorer
relies on Notepad?
A. I can't speak for him.
Q. Is that what the term cross-dependencies means to you?
A. That would be a one interpretation, yes.

Now, clearly ignoring the weasel words, there's no technical reason for the cross dependencies, and if they actually exist (which I personally doubt) it's because MS has been putting them in on purpose purely to make the case that Windows is one monolithic thing.

Maybe the state should introduce some of the NT design documents that claim how modular it is.

Re:Smirking misses the point

[arkanes]

The "inter"-dependence is probably in the open and save dialog boxes, which are explorer components and therefore tied to IE.

Re:Smirking misses the point

[blamanj]

While this artificial dependence works one way (i.e., Notepad stops working if you remove IE), it doesn't explain an artificial dependence that would cause IE to stop working if you removed Notepad.

Re:Smirking misses the point

[arkanes]

After posting, I'm wondering if he was referring to things like log viewers and other system components that try to fire notepad to show you logs or other config files. Although now that I think of it, I can't think of any WINDOWS systems that still do this, only third party ones.

Re:how hard could it be to remove the brower, anyw

[Pfhreakaz0id]

I mean, your damn add/remove programs won't work if you remove IE. Neither will my Quicken deluxe either.

nice sig!

[OdinHuntr]

Damn, The State rule(d).

Re:browser essential part of os

[shepd]

>and nothing is wrong with it except for Microsoft did it

And we wouldn't complain if they would simply stop lieing and tell the government that you can strip windows of Internet Explorer.

Since when did a KDE zealot tell you that you had to run KDE to boot linux?

Who was the "balkanization" one?

[drew_kime]

I've found quotes about several of their less-than-helpful witnesses, but I can't find that one. And the economist whose research was funded by MS. I'm trying to complete my list.

The good points must have been well buried

[drew_kime]

There have been a few exceptions to this. This opinion article came out yesterday that had some good points.

Really? Was this one of them:

Perhaps Gates should resign and Judge Kollar-Kotelly should start drawing a salary as chief software architect at Microsoft. Somehow I think even Judge Jackson wasn't stupid or biased enough to do this.

Since the author clearly thinks Microsoft was only found guilty because of a stupid, biased judge, I don't see how he can expect to be taken seriously in analyzing the remedy.

Re:The good points must have been well buried

[sheldon]

Uhh... You must have missed the appeals court ruling where they ripped Jackson for being extremely biased.

Re:The good points must have been well buried

[Chris Mattern]

Uhh...you must have missed the appeals court ruling where they upheld every charge Microsoft was found guilty on.

Chris Mattern

Learn from them

[jcsehak]

they only look bad when they whore themselves for Microsoft money

Hey, that's good business pracitce! In fact, it would seem like they're giving away a free lesson here!

of course....

[telstar]

The states didn't have the same problem because they let their witnesses help them WRITE the proposals.

Remedy phase designed to help the consumer?
Nah ... Remedy phase designed to help Microsoft's competitors. Let's not sugar-coat the truth.

Re:of course....

[_Sprocket_]

Nah ... Remedy phase designed to help Microsoft's competitors. Let's not sugar-coat the truth.

By definition, anything that hurts Microsoft will help their competitors. How does hurting Microsoft help the consumer?

The consumer is supposed to be served by a free market. A free market requires competitors. Yet, Microsoft has been rather skillfull in dismantling that free market - abusing their position to remove competition.

The remedy phase is designed to help consumers by restoring competition. Let's not obscure the truth with anti-market Microsoft cheering.

Re:gnome and kde aren't OSes

[WowTIP]

...and creates partnerships with HW vendors...

That might be easier said than done. Just look how "well" BeOS HW-bundling went.

Even worse

[epepke]

Yes, Mom, I know I took the candy from the jar. But Billy would have taken candy from the jar if he had been me.

Re:fp?

[paiute]

This clueless jerk is an insult to all things MIT and should immediately be deported to Harvard.

Assume Madnick is neither stupid nor lying.

[DaoudaW]

If I may assume for the moment that Madnick is neither stupid nor lying, what could he possibly be trying to say? Maybe he was simply using Microsoft's definition of operating system.

Windows has always been a combination operating system and windows manager not unlike linux/kde or linux/gnome. I myself have run win95 on top of Novell DOS. It worked just fine after a bit of tweaking. MS has tried to pretend over the years that what the user sees _is_ the OS. Hence, the WinXP window manager _is_ the WinXP OS, the KDE window manager _is_ the KDE OS, the Gnome window manager _is_ the Gnome OS.

Hmmm... I wonder if anyone has tried to use WINE to run Win95 on Linux!

Re:This guy's an expert in what sense, exactly?

[HydroCarbon10]

Pert shampoo? I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, however Madnick did mention that he slept in a holiday in express the night before his testimony.

Re:how hard could it be to remove the brower, anyw

[Chainsaw]

You do realize that mozilla for win32 also uses MS's API's? At least I'm presuming so, unless they re-implemented outlook, ms-help, and vs URL's on their own.

They don't use the functionality provided from Microsoft applications, only the Win32 API. Relying on finding MS applications that behave exactly the same way on Windows, Mac, Linux, HP/UX, Solaris, BeOS and OS/2 is impossible. And, after all, Outlook isn't even installed on most systems, and Outlook Express can be removed with hacks such as Win98 Lite.

Re:gnome and kde aren't OSes

[jedidiah]

15 years ago.

Unix has worked like this since before any version of MacOS existed actually.

Unix doesn't require the application developer to litter the system with crap. Unix culture actually discourages such behaivor.

So, the Linux variant of that MacOS example would be to merely "drag the Mozilla bin directory" into the trash.

What you're describing is only really complicated for WinDOS. MacOS "simplicity" here really only reflects being "like everyone else".

Re:The Thin Red Line

[Kibo]

So, I assume from you lack of comment that you find it's totally ok for Microsoft, Philips, Sony, and Compaq to try to put Roxio, and Nero out of business. After all, in a few years, most OS's will be Mt. Rainer compatible and all CD/DVD writers will be. Roxio, and who ever it is that makes Nero will need to change their business. Just like Netscape did. Once more, why is this ok for a peripheral, but not a network, which is a peripheral of a sort?

As for MS giving IE away, damn straight. I already paid for it when my tax dollard built Mosaic. Netscape should have known better, selling something which is more or less free, is something of a challanging business model. They chose the hard road, they even did alright for themselves. But any success they might have had in a world where Microsoft didn't recognize the emmerging impact of the web isn't any reason to have the courts legislate what sorts of tools developers have for windows, and make things more difficult for consumers.

Oh and as for an OS? One of the hallmarks of Operating Systems is I/O abstraction. How is a resource located on the internet, or even somewhere else on a local network logically different from a file on a hard drive. It would also seem like domain names aren't entirely different from trees of folders, why in fact tree in each context even has similar meaning. Clearly this is the bent taken by MS.

Remedies

[Tony]

The states remedies will help the consumer substantially more than the Microsoft-authored remedies. This remedy phase is designed to make us forget why Microsoft got into trouble in the first place, so we'll just be happy to swallow whatever gilded shit they decide to shove down our throats.

And *any* effective remedy is going to help Microsoft's competitors. That's what "restoring competition" is all about.

hired guns

[j09824]

Hired guns as expert witnesses are a serious problem, in particular if they don't really have much of a clue.

Go to Madnick's home page at MIT. It looks to me like the guy is stuck in the 1970's somewhere and he just seems deeply in love with big corporations--but judge for yourself. There's little experience listed there with desktop machines, the consumer market, or modern software systems.

His written testimony is quite funny. He writes things like (I'm paraphrasing) "if we do this, it would help Microsoft's competitors and hurt Microsoft" (yup, that's the point of an antitrust remedy), "this would mean that consumers might have to choose from many different components" (yup, again, that's the point), and "opening up would expose Microsoft's intellectual property" (again, that's the point: the value of much of Microsoft's so-called "intellectual property" lies in their monopoly position, not in some kind of innovation or technical contribution).

It's good that this guy exposed himself for what he really is: a hired gun with little expertise in the area he is testifying on.

Microsoft's last big-name hired Gun was Gregory Mankiw from Harvard, who stated big and bold that "delaying the release of Windows would be like throwing sand in the gears of human progress", but then later had to admit that he knew absolutely nothing about computers and just kind of thought that he thought Microsoft was good because monopolies in general were good (as a modern Harvard economist, he didn't quite put it that way, but that's what it amounted to).

Re:how hard could it be to remove the brower, anyw

[scrytch]

They don't use the functionality provided from Microsoft applications, only the Win32 API

Um, there's the matter of the fact that those url's do work from mozilla. Not in mozilla, since the container has no way to capture it (IE doesn't try to either), but this url does work on win32 mozilla if you have outlook installed. Not OE, Outlook. I wasn't even talking about OE, I don't even know why you brought it up.

And it's not the Win32 API. It's not even MFC. It's an API that IE provides and the rest of windows (such as outlook) uses.

Uhm, the article has changed...

[Lethyos]

Is Microsoft paying people off to meddle with the news? I *was* reading the article a few moments ago, but accidently closed Mozilla. When I came back, I now see something about how RealOne is so wonderful only because of Windows features. Something fishy?

Do you mean ...

[drew_kime]

... the appeals court ruling that upheld the conclusions of law essentially in their entirety, but remanded the case back to the lower court to re-evaluate the remedy?

Re:Do you mean ...

[sheldon]

Yes, that's the one.

So you at least admit that the appeals court did rule that Jackson was biased, or at least gave the impression that he was extremely biased because of his judicial misconduct. They ruled against a number of the legal points, and overturned his entire remedy as a result of this.

Now, if you think about this real hard you can probably see where your initial assumption was incorrect. i.e. where you stated that Microsoft was only found guilty because of Jackson's bias. The author never stated that, you instead read it into his writing based on your own biases.

Re:IE is 'more'

[jedidiah]

Redhat is not Microsoft.

Redhat is more like Compaq.

OTOH, Compaq is completely free to REPLACE "more" if they find variant shipped with Redhat somehow lacking.

What's with the link?

[Snootch]

The link now points at a different MS article (relating to RealNetworks). Where's the original? I wanna get my hands on some of those quotes first-hand :-)

Linux - and GNOME - allow replacement of browsers

[dwheeler]

Linux in general, and the specific combination of Linux plus GNOME together, allow web browsers to be completely replaced. Thus, it's easily shown that there's no technical reason for Microsoft's commingling.

First, let's define the requirements... a web browser is "replaceable" if you can remove its on-screen icon, eliminate its memory use, eliminate its disk space use, add a different web browsing program, and then have all the requests for web viewing from other programs (particularly operating system components) go to the other (new) web browser. What's more, it MUST be possible for PC vendors and users to make this change without special dispensation by anyone else.

This is possible on Linux, in a number of different ways. First, you could choose to use solely a textual (not graphical) environment... you can use text browsers like links, lynx, etc. These browsers can be added or removed at will. Many of today's users will want a graphical environment, of course, so let's concentrate on that. If you want to use a graphical environment, there are several available, from ``small'' environments (e.g., simply window managers like E or WindowMaker without environment components) to full-scale desktop graphical environments (mainly GNOME and KDE). Even if a web browser was embedded into a particular graphical environment, the fact that resellers and users can choose which environment to install (and not install a different one) is sufficient to meet every one of those requirements.

Even if you assumed that if only GNOME existed, GNOME still meets all these criteria. You can add or remove programs using the normal installation programs (e.g., rpm or apt); removing a program eliminates the disk and memory usage of the program, and usually if a program is added or removed the panel is adjusted automatically. You can also modify the on-screen panel and desktop to add or remove arbitrary programs, including the web browser, so clearly you can add or remove a web browser's icons. You can change what web browser is invoked by other GNOME programs; in Red Hat Linux 7.2 and GNOME, select "Programs / Settings / Doc Handlers / URL Handlers", which lets you choose by URL scheme. You can even choose what web browser is used based on the filetype, by selecting "Programs / Settings / File Types and Programs". Thus, you can install or uninstall any web browser, and have it invoked by the GNOME calls for invoking URLs. And all of this can be done by both resellers and users; you don't need dispensation by anyone.

Even if you thought it was impossible to change web browsers in KDE, you can still remove KDE and use GNOME instead. GNOME certainly shows that supporting arbitrary web browsers is quite simple. Clearly there's no technical reason that web browsers have to be so intermingled with the other components.

Re:what was stupid

[Danse]

was that the government's lawyer was trying to say that Notepad has a dependency on IE. That it is both ways, a cross-dependancy, and the expert really wanted to say "hell no man, that's stupid"

If you read the whole thing, you will see that it was a Microsoft employee and witness that claimed that there was a cross-dependency between IE and Notepad, not the government lawyer.

Re:finger madnick@mit.edu :: NOT AN MIT CS PROF!

[tswinzig]

I find this
frustrating, especially having graduated from MIT
in CS.

What a coicidence! Madnick got his PhD in CS from MIT!

Does that make you feel any better?

Re:how hard could it be to remove the brower, anyw

[Danse]

Exactly. And according to the emails that the government dug up during the trial, they did this deliberately in order to make IE inseperable from the OS. They should get smacked down hard for that. So what if they have to rewrite it? If it takes them 5 years or more to release the next version of the OS, there will be great rejoicing in the IT community.

Such lies

[Edmund Blackadder]

that is just logicaly impossible.

Re:Wow...

[jedidiah]

He brought them up.

Actually, both would be good case studies in systems design and software engineering. Plus, there's the whole "cathederal and bazaar" thing. This aspect of Linux alone makes it worthwhile for any computer science academic to give it at least a passing glance.

If this guy were an automata theory prof., such ignorance would be understandable. OTOH, he would also be a completely inappropriate witness here.

Being a fossil is no excuse to be behind the times or simply talk out your ass.

Authoritative bullsh*t is still bullsh*t.

Re:what was stupid

[sheldon]

I don't think he wanted to say that at all. It sounds as though when asked the question he was not exactly sure what the Microsoft engineer meant by that. He simply responds that he's sure the MS guy knows more about the specifics of that, than I.

It is, after all, a very specific question. Sort of a trick question, unless you knew all of ins and outs of the code. If I hadn't thought of that View Source feature I may have first said "What the fuck? IE doesn't use Notepad!"

Re:how hard could it be to remove the brower, anyw

[jedidiah]

No, they are specifically re-engineering their other products so that removing the browser becomes more complicated. WinDOS does pretty much what it did before the Web Browser became a big thing. This "current problem" is one entirely of Microsoft's own creation.

They chose poor engineering practices so that they could come back and whine about the problems that would be caused forcing them to "play nice".

What "better products"?

Re:how hard could it be to remove the brower, anyw

[jedidiah]

So? All of the software resellers that you allude to have a choice in what they sell. Those that resell Microsoft products should have the same ability. Microsoft should not have the ability to dictate to it's users (REAL USERS like Gateway), how their product is to be used AFTER THE SALE.

Merely give Gateway the rights it should have as a consumer. Prevent Microsoft from abusing it's position as "dominant vendor" to strip Gateway of it's rights.

Re:how hard could it be to remove the brower, anyw

[jedidiah]

I've got a NOVEL idea: let the entity that SELLS THE PC direct end users to useful extension products.

Re:how hard could it be to remove the brower, anyw

[jedidiah]

No, the states don't like the fact that Microsoft has it and is abusing it to the deteriment of it's own customers.

You do realize that NETSCAPE was a Microsoft customer. DELL is also a Microsoft customer.

A specialized ftp client, or even a standardized ftp library, would not be quite so problematic. It becomes problematic when market segments are systematically and artificially destroyed.

The problems you bring up are hardly unsurmountable or even difficult.

What the Taliban did to us...or their own people?

[Skip666Kent]

In terms of war it's negligible. It's not nice, and we're certainly not going to run around bragging about it, but it's war, and these losses are nothing compared to what these folks have suffered at the hands of their own leaders.

Re:what was stupid

[Danse]

What the hell else does "cross-dependency" mean? If it isn't both ways, then it would just be a dependency. If the MS employee said something stupid, then the witness should have said that, but the witness was obviously pretty clueless about software anyway. He spends a few hours looking at Windows source code and apparently no time studying other OSes, and he is supposed to be an expert witness?!

Re:Umm, this is total crap.

[Chris Johnson]

The prosecution is establishing that every single Microsoft witness are lying like rugs and sometimes, like Jerry Sanders, are doing nothing but parroting lines fed them by Microsoft Legal, without even having paid attention to the case at all.

In other words, the Microsoft witnesses are either perjurers or puppets, or in some cases may be pointedly trying not to know about the case so they can parrot off their prewritten lines without being too troubled by the fact that they're talking intentional nonsense.

Showing that the Microsoft witnesses are all sock-puppets is very, very relevant to the case.

it was still in my cache...

[gimpboy]

so i decided to share it with the rest of you:
the original article
have fun

Re:Enough!

[reflective recursion]

For one thing, I already stated that I know MS has been charged and determined guilty in anti-competitive behavior. That does not mean I agree with the judgement, nor do I believe in any possible resolution which will benefit consumers. I for one believe Microsoft is not a monopoly because of various reasons and this is why no remedy is possible. This is orthogonal to whatever the government has judged. I'm simply saying for a possible monopoly remedy there has to be a possible monopoly resource which the government can open up to competitors. This is not possible because the only resource involved in this "monopoly" is a direct result of Microsoft's labor and not a physical resource such as oil. What the government is not seeing is that Microsoft does not have a monopoly on a resource, but on a focal point or dependency. They also do not seem to understand that this focal point can shift and bring another "monopoly" into power because of the nature of applications, software, and the "desktop" market.

If they don't sell you Windows, the store owner is out of business.

This is simply not true. In a market, supply meets demand. No one is demanding anything other than Windows (typically.. demanding say Red Hat Linux would be very uncommon in Best Buy). It is probably cheaper for vendors to sign a Windows deal rather than purchase Windows on a per-demand basis.

In fact, even if Microsoft did hurt you, you will never have the balls to go to court and speak against them.

This is garbage. I remember a few years ago a woman bought a coffee at McDonalds and spilled some on her and got burnt. She sued and got a massive amount in the settlement. It wasn't even McDonalds fault.

Do you recall how many software companies that make Windows products had the guts to testify against Microsoft?

Perhaps only a few people were "hurt." The other companies such as Sun and Netscape were doing it in an anti-competitive nature by actually using the government as a business tool to strike at Microsoft.

Thanks for making that clear.

[Erris]

Try installing Real Player (Real One) and watch the default installation - that which the majority of users would use - take over every media file in your system.

Gee, did someone else figure out how to use MicroShit's perverse tools for their own advantage? That's not fair! MicroShit invented those tools to crush others, how dare they use them to poop back on MicroShit with them?

See a patern here? It goes back to the "jolting" experience that MicroShit designed for anyone who wanted to use a browser that was not IE. Microsoft made an OS to screw the user. It's not suprising that others would who wish to do the same would be attracted to the platform. If MicroShit wanted their users to be able to configure their machines the way they want, they would have real user accounts, permissions, text configuration files istead of a binary "registration" file that breaks the whole computer when corrupted, and finally they would release their source code. Instead they are more concerned with selling desktop "real estate" for advertising, Office sales, and other pushy little domination games. MicroShit is all about limiting technology for their own profit.

There is no greater issue concerning us today than the unholy aliance of M$ and the media companies to force the SSSCA on all of us. The SSSCA or whatever it's called these days, is only possible in a M$ type world. I hate having to use M$ at work. I think I'd leave the country if laws were made that declared all alternatvies illegal. It's a freedom of speech issue. The country has really gone to hell when legislators can take the crassest of the entertianment industry more seriously than freedom as reflected in the Bill of Rights.

Link to the ORIGINAL Article...

[Lethyos]

This link was provided by someone who replied to my post. For those of you who haven't notice, CNN pulled the original article and replaced it with a more Microsoft-friendly one. Total bullshit. I am sure MS offered them a chunk of cash to keep this on the down-low.

Go grab it here: http://sage.che.pitt.edu/~harrold/tmp/73B9A1D4d01. html

Re:What the Taliban did to us...or their own peopl

[tempest303]

Which clearly makes *us* doing it ok!

Re:Well this guy was an MIT prof -- NOT CS

[Billly Gates]

He still should of known what linux is. Hell, I even heard linux mentioned in jeopardy on television. Sure its a geek show but it certianly is not aimed at cs students. This guy here suppose to teach MIS at a very high level. I believe unix is taught more in MIS related majors then cs ones because its suppose to be practical. Cs really is about mathamically theories and problem solving. It has nothing and I mean almost nothing to do with computers. I despise the circulumn. MIS is more practical in the real world outside of university. My brother has a masters in MIS and he had to learn assembler, fortran, writing programs to solve bussiness related problems, etc. He learned alot. ALot more then named b-tree algirythms. He actually learned how to solve a problem with a computer. Wow, What an experience.

Also MIT is not only a premiere school but a really expensive one. If I pay to be educated by MIT, I would demand an education experience above anything else. This guy can not fullfill this role and should reprimanded. I sure would not want to be taught by him.

Re:What the Taliban did to us...or their own peopl

[Skip666Kent]

If we stick with it and help them move towards a more user-friendly democracy, yes. Abso-frikkin'-lutely.

Re:how hard could it be to remove the brower, anyw

[scrytch]

Outlook: the mailing interface in mozilla is native, it already was in netscape 4.
MS help: just some html files make already great help.
what is "vs url's" (da snap ik nie).


Not sure how to explain myself better (was that dutch?). The outlook: url actually launches outlook -- it's not something Mozilla does, it's something Mozilla calls in one of the IE API's (urlmon.dll I think, but I'm not much of a windows developer). I'm sure mozilla will work without IE -- the point is, it works with it. This is a lot different than IE being Mozilla's enemy, it's mozilla working with IE, and IE's API working well with mozilla. IE didn't have to be destroyed first.

A vs URL points to things in visual studio -- you can link to workspaces and projects and other things in visual studio, using a vs url. I'm not that familiar with it, I just don't think it's very useful except for sharing information between developers.

Prevention, not cure

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I really can't believe that we're still arguing about browser bundling in Windows. This point may have been significant 5 years ago, but the battle has been over for awhile.

That's not really the point. What's at stake here is the principle, because that's going to set precedents. I'll come back to why that's important later.

Out of all of these commonly bundled applications (after all what desktop OS distribution doesn't include one of these applications in some form or another), the web browser has assumed a unique and important role in the modern computing environment. It has transcended its role as a mere user application and has become a vital system component that other applications have come to rely on.

Not at all. You're confusing the ability to render HTML (which is arguably a UI service, just as drawing a window or displaying a menu is) with the application known as a web browser (which is not in any way a necessary part of any OS). The former is what's become important to other applications, not the latter.

On a level playing field, I see no reason MS shouldn't ship both an HTML rendering service as part of the OS, and a web browser application that uses it. However, at that point, the web browser application should (on technical grounds) be completely removeable and replaceable by another product that uses the same underlying HTML rendering, without prejudice. (This, of course, relies on competitors having access to the same OS APIs as the MS web browser development team, and the information necessary to use them.)

The point is that this isn't a level playing field. By blurring the lines between what is a fundamental part of the OS and what is a value-adding application shipped with it, MS have forced a legitimate competitor (Netscape) out of the market.

Now, if you allow them to get away with that, you set a precedent that says next time, they can do the same thing to Real in the media market, AOL T-W in the instant messaging market, and so on. You basically create law that says forcing people out that way is OK.

If, on the other hand, you set a clear precedent that an OS vendor must allow competitors to develop the same supporting applications as they can, and must allow anyone interested to replace the supplied-with-OS apps with alternatives without prejudice if they wish to do so, then you have created an open-and-shut-case scenario should MS ever abuse their monopoly in that way again. Given the nature of the US legal system and the scale of damages it tends to award, that basically makes it likely that future abuses won't happen. But first, you have to set a clear precedent, and that's what the states' attorneys are presumably trying to do.