Slashdot Mirror
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]"
Ya know, a modular version of Windows wouldn't be all that bad. If it had a decent performance, I would use it and recommend it for some processes.
By chasing after this silly goal of forcing Microsoft to release a modular Windows, instead of the much more rational goal of forcing Microsoft to release APIs, file formats, network protocols, and other such information, it shows that everyone involved is in Microsoft's pocket.
I think what the competition really wants is for Windows to become so inconsistent that customers will come scrambling to them for solutions.
I, for one, wouldn't have any idea how to help my aunt use her Gateway Computer if they decided to include some things but not others.
"Derp de derp."
Just look at the language they themselves use:
Windows XP Embedded is the componentized version of the leading desktop operating system,
Based on the same binaries as Windows XP Professional
They seem to go out of their way to say that it is the same as the desktop XP.
I never understood M$'s argument anyway. What a load of hokum. Too bad there can't be a tribunal of judges that actually knew something about technology, they'd see just how lame M$'s claims are.
This will not be it. This would be a disaster of monstrous proportions. The primary reason this would be a disaster is that it's a business solution to a technical problem -- MS is a master at wiggling out of things like this. MS WILL create a disastrous modular marketplace where consumers will rush back into their all encompassing embrace. That's exactly what they are good at.
The remedies that have been proposed by commenters on
Such as:
mandatory open APIs
open file formats
rational pricing
no "comprehensive" licensing
mandatory list pricing of OS for computer sales (my own contribution)
you can't install products after the computer is delivered in Windows XP Embedded
I'm sure it wouldn't take much to flip the "allow installations" bit back on. XP Embedded is basically Windows XP with some components removed and that bit off.
will anyone buy a stripped-down version of Windows?
I'll be first in line! I want to get rid of most of the useless crap I'm currently stuck with on my current XP install.
Give me the choice of what I want to install... don't make the choice for me.
Microsoft is sinking to new lows in my eyes... something that I thought was "technically impossible". :)
:)
But seriously, when it comes down to it, this is about money. Has anyone thought of trying to show Microsoft a way that it can make *more* money by building (or rather, allowing people to take advantage of) a modular Windows? I don't expect there to be too many responses, since I'm sure (well, not that sure) that MS has put some thought into this. But just looking to generate some discussion.
Really, dealing with MS is like dealing with a spoiled 5 year old. At this, I'm just trying to think of ways that one might "reason" with such a child.
-Captain Abstraction
I can't help but feel that they are too late in the trial to get anything good out this.
The real issue here is not browsers, since removing IE is a just a stupid idea, its forcing MS to disclose its hiddens API's and file formats.
Chopping XP into pieces will only harm the consumer. 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.
I really think that if these two steps are implemented, and MS is forced to deal with OEMs in a fair way, we will all be the better for it.
What sucks is, the possibility of this happening doesn't even seem to be on the roadmap.
As an aside I also think the judges and many of the people involved don't even understand the technology which for me is scary. How can you make judgements on something you don't even understand? I know that's a simplistic point of view but seriously, you can't tell me that if the judge was poor and couldn't afford to buy MS Office he wouldn't be pissed that Open Office mangles his word docs because MS is so tightassed about the specs. Having a judge who knows both nix and windows well might produce bias, but at least he would know what he was talking about when he made his ruling. Right now there is a 50/50 chance that because he doesn't understand technology he might rule that "yeah MS not disclosing the API's for security makes sense to me...a lay person".
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Honestly, that's like pointing out the fact that Rolls Royce builds engines for jet liners, then asking why they cannot make a flying car. I think that all Microsoft has to do is bring in a system that's vastly different from his demo one, and ask him to install his version of Embedded XP on it. "Hmm, nice, a P3 running with a Geforce2, SB Live, and 3Com modem. Can you install that thingy you have on this athlon running a Radeon with a DLink network card, and a non-SB soundcard? No? Hmm. Well, watch us install XP Home on it, then install XP Home, from the same CD, onto your machine. Now, how is your modular version better?" Could Microsoft strip a bunch of crap out? Absolutely. Should they? No.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Excellent. Get to choose what we want to install. At last people will be able to have a 20Mb windows install and loads of space for applications of THEIR CHOICE..
---- There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't
I guess what I keep seeing is them say "It's not feasible" which is different than "It's impossible". XP embedded is geared towards a much different market with much different needs than the consumer desktop market. Therefore it's feasible to have a modular version that the end developer compiles to be embedded into a product that does not change often. The end developer then does all of the support for the OS based on what they've compiled into the unit. If MS could create a "modular" version of the desktop OS and the OEM's compiling it did all of the support then that might be more feasible but it sounds as if that's not being open as an option.
Desktop PC's change much more often and have much much more software and hardware changed out than embedded systems do. So to test XP Embedded and equate it to what can be done with XP desktop is not a fair or accurate comparison and doesn't address issues of support.
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
Isn't it strange how Microsoft management say they can not ship Internet Explorer as a separate module or product, when it apparently is possible for them to ship a much more complicate module such as MS Office as a separate module?
Trusted Computing FAQ | Free Dawit Isaak!
Scenario 2 is someone has windows without the internet module installed and calls in asking "how do I get online, windows is supposed to do that" and ms has to explain that because they got a version without that module installed they will need to go purchase the module (or worse yet an actual complete version of windows). Bad scenario to be in.
This also puts windows in exactly the position that I think is linux's biggest problem for going mainstream. There are just too many versions and no instruction manuals can be written that are comprehensive because there are so many options.
One of the big design goals in creating windows was a unified look and feel. The ability for a person to learn a few core skills and be able to use all of the OS with little trouble. What will certainly happen if modular windows is required is that people will have to learn how to use a far larger set of skills. I am 100% opposed to having windows with major components being plugable unless MS can control the bar for accepting a module as "certified". Its MS's image on the line and they are being forced to put that image in the hands of other companies that won't be affected as much by a failure.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
The real gain would be in simplicity of a streamlined Windows. 99.999% of home users only need to connect to Internet, browse Web and read/send Email. Even the dumb Lookout is too complex and too full of [mis-]features that they can not control it. What real people want is an appliance-like Windows which you *can* extend if you need to, and which you *can* simplify if you need to, as your goals dictate. But as of now, you get "all or nothing" package from which you can not even [easily] remove certain software even if you *know* that it is harmful to your enterprise (OE, IE, MSN etc.)
I have 0% microsoft OS on my webserver, and it never crashes:)
:)
I have 100% microsoft OS on my webserver, and it never crashes either. Funny how these things work...
I think this "Modular Windows" is a bunch of crap anyway: what will it accomplish? You _KNOW_ it will sell for the same price as "regular Windows", if not making Regular Windows even more. Of course no (normal consumer) is going to buy "modular Windows" cause they want the apps, baby. When someone goes into the store and buys a Compaq Presario, they want to plug it in, click, and "Welcome to the internet, my friend!" They don't want to bother installing audio/video players, web browsers, et cetera --- they don't care. All they care is that it WORKS.
ASSUME this demo goes off. A non-tech expert gets convinced by ONE PERSON that he has developed a replacement for Windows. (right)
As a programmer on Windows, I'd hate it.
Think about the situation on Linux -- dependencies left and right. That's fine for SOME people (you people reading this, mainly). But common consumers? The mass market? Come on...
Shipping a program for Windows would no longer be just a matter of shipping one or two new versions of DLLs with a software package. Instead, requirements would read: MSWKernel 1.2343 or better, MSGDI 1.232 or better, REALSound 1.001 or better, AOLNetworking 0.12415 or better.
Programs would have to be written targetting EACH possible configuration. Sure, one can ASSUME that all interfaces would behave the same, but who are we kidding? Each company, trying to get OEM deals, would be trying to make some performance aspect stand out. Which means software will then be wanted that uses those effects. But what works on REALSound wouldn't necessarily work on CREATIVELiveSound. So as a developer, I would have to be developing for multiple platforms to sell for Windows.
And let's assume I require MSNetworking. While other companies might have competing networking configurations, my product is so wonderful everyone decides to give MSNetworking a whirl, just so they can use my product. I would then have to be arranged as an OEM, reselling the MSNetworking component along with my program... and another version for those who already have it!
Unfortunately, it really would wreck havok if the majority of users suddenly had to worry about every aspect of their system configuration. Windows provides a base-line configuration anyone can program to. Switching to this "destroy it all" modularity design would make people much less eager to work with computers that might change radically under the installation of one program... think about it, install AOL and all of a sudden, you have ads in your background, your documents, your emails, your startup screen... (they have to make revenue somehow).
The solution really is to make MS publish their standards. Working from their published documentation does reveal a lot -- their MSDN library is much more accessible and unified than every other developer's documentation package I've worked with. What IE provides to the operating system is to an extent known -- you can analyze the IE object for what interfaces and methods it supports fairly easily. If MS is forced to continue this, and allow groups like Samba and OpenOffice to work better with their software, much more will be gained than if suddenly a one-floppy program needs to ship on three CDs in order to be sure all systems have the necessary components in order to play minesweeper.
Not necessarily true. What do you define as 'IE'? I can delete iexplore.exe and my system will run fine, just no web browser. But if you delete the IE dependencies like shdocvw.dll and mshtml.dll, sure Windows will still run but Explorer can't. We need to define what exactly constitutes "Windows" here. Sure, you can consider "Linux" as just a kernel; likewise, you can't run the KDE graphical desktop without the KDE tarballs! Anyone knows that you can very easily replace the Windows shell; but without IE, there is no Windows shell, XP embedded or not.... Embedded systems don't have a start menu, buddy.
Enforcement is always the problem. Who wants a government agency watching every release to see it complies? Who need smore length drawn out trials and hearings?
Let M$ deifne what's OS and what's apps. Release the source *of the OS only* free of charge (but not for use to avoid licensing) at the same time as the binary release. Then anyone can see what the APIs actually are. Anyone could also compile the source to see that it matches the actual release.
Require source release of file validators, which validate files as complying with the published formats. Anyone could check their files; if it fails, bingo! -- fine M$.
So simple. It solves most of the forced upgrade problems, it eliminates any oversight committees, etc. Not perfect, but a pretty good start.
Also, these published APis and file format checkers can be used by ANYONE without licensing of any sort. The OS itself can't be compiled and used. They can still inflict audits on people.
Infuriate left and right
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yes but I guarantee that the Mozilla rendering engine com object would not be a drop in replacement for the IE object and tons of software would suddenly not work if it went missing.
A modular windows is great for embedded applications but a nightmare for consumers. Even Linux is headed twards some sort of standardization for consumers. Your example of KDE is a good one. KDEs file manager uses the built in Konquer engine. If you completely removed Konq from a KDE install then the file manager is crippled or completely non functional. So even if you hate Konq and want to use mozilla on KDE you still need Konq (Or atleast it's rendering engine) installed. Same with IE. Allow manufactuerers to install Netscape if they want, but Leave IE intact!
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
I don't get why no one has latched on to the fact that you can't install products after the computer is delivered [com.com] in Windows XP Embedded. The author of the linked article (which can be found in the sidebar of the article linked in this story) makes a really good case as to why a system based on Windows XP Embedded won't fly in the consumer marketplace.
You're right, but are those problems relevant yet? MS seems to be going for a quick win on this point by making it an either/or question. As I read it, the argument boils down to:
Or to put it another way, MS is arguing that it can't be done and Bach shouldn't be allowed to show otherwise because the States didn't follow procedure; Judge CKK correctly thinks that Bach's testimony is relevant regardless of the "tactical" timing. MS screwed up; trying to prove a negative is hard, and all it takes is one counter-example to tip your "proof" into /dev/null.
Outcome: Bach will show his system, which will work about as well as Windows usually does, probably better. It doesn't have to be wonderful, it just has to work as a proof-of-concept. MS will backtrack, and then we'll get into the question of how useful/maintainable a modular Windows could be. That'll be a long fight.
Hopefully the Court's final opinion will have an appendix listing all the different times MS has changed a story after a collision with reality. :)
When they buy it from Compaq, it will have all of those apps. The difference is that Compaq will pick the apps that best suit its customers - for example, Mozilla instead of or in addition to IE, etc. It's a straw man to say that "consumers don't want to install apps" - nobody is suggesting that at all. The argument here is to restore the modularity to Windows that Microsoft removed when they were trying to strong-arm an OS monopoly into an apps monopoly.
P.S. I hear there's another IIS bug out; you might want to guard your web server before somebody else crashes it for you :)
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Nonsense.
Nobody is compiled XP Embedded, it's shipped as binaries for the target system.
OEMs are obliged to support Windows Desktop as it is therefore a modular Windows will make precisely zero difference to this relationship.
Any other bits of insight you'd like to share?
It seems to me that there is confusion between the companies wanting to install their own browsers and MS wanting to remove all trace of HTML libraries. At the end of the day people want a choice of the browser they use. I don't hear them saying they want that browser to do the help system/file manager/settings/network neighbourhood etc it is purely about having a choice of what brower people want to use. Nobody is saying remove ALL trace of their HTML libraries. I dare say there are many libraries installed under linux that may not be used by the applications I have installed but I do not demand them removed like I am not expecting microsof to remove their libraries.
If you have, lets say, 5-6 major libs (WinInet, Common Controls, MMedia, etc) per app, than you will soon see these "stripped" down machines become massively bloated (100-1000 times is very resonable estimate).
Basically, just imagine statically compiling every app on your linux box against glibc.
If i install an application that needs a library I don't have I install that library and then if any other applications come along that need it they share that single install??! As far as I can remember windows does the same (VBRUN.DLL or whatever you needed to run VB applications when you didn't have the development software on that computer?
At the end of the day I understand what you are saying and agree to a certain extent. At the same time all that is being asked of microsoft is to allow anyone to replace applications with their own alternatives (obviously not crippling windows at the same time by removing essential libraries for other components). Windows isn't going to become 100-1000 times more bloated just because a vendor wants netscape to appear instead of IE and Realplayer to appear instead of Mediaplayer.
Mark.
---- There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't
>Ahh, but the states want all those co-mingled pieces taken out.
Well if thats the case then yes I agree but from what I have been reading in the news I thought it was just about letting people have the choice of browser/media player etc and not forcing ONLY their products on everyone.
Mark.
---- There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't
You abuse the word "Honestly".
Microsoft is being pressured to create product which is a subset of a product that they already produce. This would be more analogous to Rolls Royce being forced to come up with a version of their cars that have the engine or bits of the drive train removed so that BF Goodrich could come along and make cloned replacement parts.
Your ramblings bear no resemblance to reality.
OTOH, there is great value in competition in a free market. It forces companies to IMPROVE or die rather than just colluding with themselves.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
You've misstated what the states want. They want the OEMs to have the freedom to leave certain pieces out, or add some of their own.
The App companies will do just as they did in the Win 95 era -- tell the user to go install IE before installing the app, or include IE on the CD media.
The goal is not end users building up frankenstein desktops from scratch, using s/w they downloaded from the web.
Hardware vendors -- Dell, Compaq (sorry, HPQ), Sony -- they will make a desktop for use with the machines they sell, forging alliances with AOL, Real, etc. to build up a user environment on top of the commodity OS core that MS would provide.
Add in the tech oversight in the company, forced publishing of core APIs, etc., thus allowing RedHat, BSD or Apple to make a "drop in" replacement core...
That would be a tough situation for MS.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Am I the only one getting tired of this genuine FUD about how the world is a better place because Microsoft keeps Windows distributions identical?
/. posts dismissively paint as helpess lusers) getting the same OS, applications, features and options is the same kind of logic that defended the phone monopoly.
/. through Netscape in Mac OS 8.1 running on a PPC system. I'm guessing there are plenty of people accomplishing the same thing in systems which match none of those attributes. If that can work, different versions of Windows should not be an obstacle to anything of significance.
Efficiency through uniformity is not a good policy for an issue this broad. The kind of logic that claims we are better off with everyone (well, at least all of those "consumers" that so many
I don't buy the argument that just because people aren't using the exact same system, everything will fall apart.
Right now, I'm interacting on
Diversity is OKAY.
In fact it's a strength. Wouldn't it save the IT industry some headaches if one vulnerability could no longer nail 90% of the systems?
You state a problem that will not be encountered. The states are only trying to show that Windows is modular, such that not everything bundled with Windows must be installed (such as a media player that discourages use of RealPlayer, Quicktime, whatever). That does not necessarily mean that Microsoft cannot provide these components if the consumers want them. The beaf with MS is that they install everything on your system, whether you want it or not, and the presence of that software is what stifles competition. If MS are forced to change, it would be removing the "install everything" aspect of the installer, while shipping Windows with everything it has now.
So, if you are a developer and you're writing a package that depends on MSHTML, the installer could simply state that it needs the Windows CD (which anyone with a legal copy will have) to continue installation. Programs do this all the time today - it's very common. Especially Microsoft applications (Office upgrades for instance). Basically, everything needed to satisfy dependencies will be available to the user, just not installed by default on their system.
We're not talking about MS selling stripped down Windows, we're talking about MS selling a modular Windows. You've missed the point.
Why bother.
Fully conclusive? No.
But look at the wine mailling lists (or even the weekly summaries). There are plenty of posts along the lines of "app X isn't working because abc.dll makes undocumented call def(ghi, jkl)". Why do you think that Wine still hasn't finished? They have to spend so much time reverse-engineering that actually getting to write the code is far from the hard part.
Solution to blink tags: wrap them in another blink tag, with a javascript delay loop, so they cancel each other out
What do you think you are, some kind of Jedi knight, waving your hand around like that?
Microsoft can choose to provide software components using several different approaches. The notion of requiring an entire program is rather novel, and first surfaced with Internet Explorer. Before that time components were physically deployed as DLLs. The components provided with IE are also DLLs, of course, but they are not packaged for independent deployment.
Consider choosing to depend on a single simple DLL like comdlg32. I link dynamically and include comdlg32 in the installation process. Under XP if that version is already there nothing happens; if it isn't there is side-by-sides. Under earlier Windows if it is already there it gets overwritten. Either way, comdlg32.dll is installed as a shareable library. Now if another program is also installed that uses comdlg32 the same thing happens. But no bloat has occured -- both programs use the same DLL and load one instance when both programs are executing at the same time.
The HTML rendering components of IE could also be packaged for independent deployment, if Microsoft desired. No bloat or configuration problems would occur. But Microsoft intentionally changed their deployment model with the development of IE. The fact that the physical model is so convoluted is not an excuse, it is a symptom of anti-competitive practice.
And why do you think this is? It's because Microsoft wanted to embed the browser into the operating system. If they wanted to make the browser easy to install, without tying directly into the operating system, it would be done that way. People have managed to do it with Mozilla http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/control.htm . Heck the mozilla control even has basically the same API as the IE control so it could be a drop in replacement for the dreaded MSHTML.DLL (which has umpteen versions and you have to do a test in your code anyway to see what features you have available, etc).
Leave them alone. Do absolutely nothing to them.
Seriously. Let them have their monopoly. Let them change their licensing to subscription based pay per use licensing.
Their customers are already squealing at the prices they are paying and the massive licensing costs are reducing the competitiveness of some large companies already. MS will have to squeeze tighter and tighter in order to continue sucking money.
Meanwhile Linux will spread and OpenOffice will spread. At some point in the near future, there will be a "catastrophe" and Windows will no longer be the most popular desktop operating system.
Any attempts to curb Microsoft's excesses simply prolong their dominance of the desktop market.
Deleted