MS Judge to Allow Demonstration of Modular Windows

robkill writes: "U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, over the vigorous objections of Microsoft, will allow the nine dissenting states to demonstrate a modular version of Windows. The software is based on Windows XP Embedded, and was built by computer consultant James Bach. Details can be found here [zdnet.com]"

Comments

Re:Are we there yet?

[cscx]

But for example, if Open Office had access to the complete office file specs we could start to see some real change.
Also how about publishing the AD specs so Samba can be dropped in without any problems.

Uhh, right.

But for example, if Ford had access to the complete GM automobile line specs, we could start to see some real change.
Also how about publishing the vehicle specs so that a Japanese engine can be dropped in without any problems. (don't get picky on details there; it's just an example, people!)

Re:There are two sides to every story...

[GSloop]

Here's how I judge the world in general and this dispute in particular.

I see Michael post, and he generally seems like a jerk. Sort of like a mini version of that Dick (Morrell) that does smoothwall. (And numerous other self important primidonna types that I've seen)

Seth, on the other hand, posts reasonable, thoughtful comments. Seems generally well thought out and reasonable. Self deprecating etc...

Make your own conclusions, but when I'm faced with conflicting facts, I start looking at the actions of the parties in the general world.

Seth looks a whole lot more attractive to me.

Perhaps you like Michael, but then again, "Birds of a feather..."

Cheers!

more true than funny

[Erris]

The whole point of M$'s closed source SDK, VB, C pound, .NET, or whatever they push these days, is that they can BREAK YOUR CODE AT WILL. It's fundamental, only people who pay tons of money for the latest and greatest SDKs will be viewed as "real" programers. Real, that is, until M$ decides to co-opt your "product" and either buys your life's work (so you get to fire all your friends) for $500,000 or breaks you (and you get to fire all your friends). Anyone who has ever relied on a M$ toy only to have it broken knows this is so. Try telling a client that your program won't print because Microsoft changed their print methods on you, HA!

What amazes me is how difficult it is to explain this to people. Fortunately for me, I don't program for a living. That makes it a little easier. With all the broken programs, M$ platform performance DECREASES in the face of hardware improvements, With a feature set that has improved little over 10 years, you would think people would get it. Why is it that such elaborate methods must be used to prove such a simple concepts? People who hide things are deceptive. People who lie are dishonest; decpetive and dishonest people who colude to restrict free trade are racketeers and criminals. $1,000,000,000 of advertising works wonders.

Re:Serious question...

[jedidiah]

Where do you people get your information? What made you think WinDOS was "consistent" to begin with? What make you think that you can make assumptions under the current regime? ALL Microsoft application installers spew all sorts of crap all over a system. No two WinDOS boxes are alike. WinDOS machines are more like snowflakes than the precisely machined and highly consistent systems that you Lemmings make them out to be.

The "extra CHAOS" will be minimal at best.

A PC still remains a collection of spare parts and it's Windows software still remains a random collection of developer distributed system libraries.

The added complexity might not even be any more than what Microsoft would have introduced on it's own.