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.
I wonder how long it will be before it crashes.
--Metrollica
I think the judge allowing this indicates that maybe she's not in Microsoft's pocket after all.
everythings always about windows,
WINDOWS, WINDOWS, WINDOWS!</jan brady>
...and this lie crawls out of its mouth: 'I, the state, am the people.'
But unfortunatly, Microsoft countered by denying their Product Activation Code at the time of the demo! D'oh!
(emphasis added)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
One problem I could see with this is that Windows' own bugginess could be misconstrued as the fault of the person who developed this modular windows.
"And if you'll watch as I click here, you'll see that there is no Internet Explor-- Er... one second folks, I have to reboot..."
Microsoft Lawyer: "AH-HA! Innocent I tell you!"
She should have scheduled the presentation for 5/16 instead of 5/15 to coincide with the release of attack of the clones
thank you very much, I'll be here all week.
... why no one has latched on to the fact that you can't install products after the computer is delivered 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.
/. readers must have worked on embedded systems before. The fact is that embedded systems aren't meant to be modified after installation. Sure, you can add an installer, but then it no longer becomes an embedded system. Is this hacked, pseudo-embedded system really going to do its job any better than Windows XP does right now? (And will anyone buy a stripped-down version of Windows?)
Some of you
The real solution is to get Microsoft to open all of their API's so developers can write compatible software (or perhaps replacement software) for Windows and Office components. Enough with the "18,000 different (but modular, ooh!) versions of Windows" arguments... and bring on the more compatible, better software that opening the API's will help to deliver.
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
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)
I don't know how proving Windows XP embedded is modular proves Windows is modular. Considering Microsoft's track record, I don't think they intend to do anything modular at all (except if it suits their needs).
How many more MS stories have we got today? (TM)
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
One Microsoft lawyer was heard commenting:
"Well, a modular version of Windows is impossible. What the heck, let him testify."
He has since been given a promotion to the Microsoft head office in Afghanistan.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
My conclusion is that if there was a stripped-down version of Windows, there wouldn't be many applications developed for it. So no consumers would use it. Then Microsoft could continue to add Windows "features" that deprecate third-party software usage, and just point to the modular Windows when anyone complains.
my blog
A "modular" WinXP Embedded. Fine. What does this prove that's relevant to the desktop & server OSes? Is someone trying to pull a fast one on the judge, hoping that as long as "modular" and "Windows XP" are in close proximity, it won't be noticed that this isn't the OS that everyone's up in arms about?
I notice the article does not say "Over the objections of Microsoft and the US Dept of Justice." Maybe the Justice Dept. has decided not to be so vigorous in defending Microsoft.
My favourite Microsoft quote in that article: "But the software giant says it would be technically impossible to offer multiple versions of Windows and would create havoc for consumers and the computer industry." Let's see, there's about umpteen Windows versions available today (server versions, modular embedded versions, a number of desktop versions) and yes they're creating havoc (due to poor quality control). But then, MS Windows has always created havoc, ever since there was only one or two versions of MS Windows around.
Trusted Computing FAQ | Free Dawit Isaak!
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
not that I play solitaire myself, but what if they took that out of modular windows? people who spend all their time playing it wouldn't know what to do anymore.
What I would really love to see is basically a version of Windows that is stripped down to basically Kernel level. That should be one of the license options they offer. Then software distributors could build their own "Windows distros" on top of that.
Of course they should also be forced to offer an additional licenses to the bare minimum functional Windows desktop / File manager / Graphics libraries / Audio libraries / etc.
Lastly they should offer an optional license which includes all the extra middleware crap (IE, Media player, etc.) that is at issue here.
If these "distributors" can resell what they license then we could have options in the marketplace that range from "MS Windows" just as it is today, to "Windows Lite" which is the bare minimums, to "AOL Windows with the Real Media Player and Netscape".
The dissenting states should also demonstrate the use of tools such as apt-get and rpm and up2date. OS modularity is one the most obvious design concepts and for M$ to be ignoring that is obvious proof of the fact that they want certain monopoly-maintaining apps to be as non-removable as a motor oil stain on parking lot pavement.
Some people say the judge is biased against the states. I don't think so. I believe her main concern is running a tight ship so that her performance isn't criticized by her colleagues later on. Whatever her judgement is at the end, she wants it to stick and to withstand all challenges. It's just too bad if myopia or sloppiness on the part of the dissenting states results in a lessening of Microsoft's well deserved punishment.
Peace.
This
Microsoft: It can't be done! It can't be done!
States: Yes it can, and we can prove it!
Microsoft: Damn!
And, in related news, the Federation of Outlook Virus Writers (F0VW) has submitted a complaint to U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, claiming that a modular Windows would destroy their market.
According to F0VW spokesman ph34r-m0ng3r, a modular Windows would give consumers the option of removing Outlook Express, a component normally installed in a basic Windows installation. This component is critical to the "successful operation and deployment of Outlook-related virii", he said.
"We believe Microsoft should have the right to innovate," he also said. "Outlook was built with many features that we like to, um, exploit. Thousands of popular worms and virii were made possible by their software and the industry is growing every day. A modular Windows would kill this development and ruin the industry."
An emergency hearing to consider this new petition is forthcoming, according to sources close to F0VW and Microsoft.
---
Bach will testify that his modular version of Windows was "robust and reliable," Kollar-Kotelly said, citing the states' submission. :-)
Why wouldn't anybody want this modified version of Windows XP Embedded instead of Windows XP Pro? It's robust and reliable, unlike the other versions of XP
make a big fight on windows, so that everything is focused there. Meanwhile develop behind the scene all kinds of other stuff so that they can have control
what kind of stuff?
I don't know, maybe like the patent on the Digital Rights Management Operating system, which if tied into the various legal messes, would mandate MS software as a legal requirement through out the USA.
There are other possibilities as well.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
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,"
I think those are nice ideas, but I don't think MS would sit by and let an active marketplace for these substitutions to develop.
As it was, though XP wasn't really all that significant an upgrade to W2K, a LOT of software broke and had to be tweaked work properly. With each of these revisions, MS leaves other developers by the wayside.
I do think this should be possible, but I think it should be a detail within the general remedies; but it seems to be the main focus of the states' efforts right now.
If what the states win in this antitrust trial is a modular version of windows, it will not sufficiently address MS' behavior nor really hamper their monopoly behavior over an period of time. It's not really that much a win for one of the most important anti-trust trial in a really, really long time.
I have serious concerns about what would happen if a modular version of Windows was released, allowing computer makers to customize what comes with it. Wouldn't that be chaotic? If I buy a computer at Dell I might get Opera and Office etc, but if I bought a computer at Gateway I might get Netscape and Star Office. This is a bit of a problem because of the incompatibilities that are bound to arise.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say everybody should run Windows and be happy with it. I'm legitimately trying to ask if my concern is valid, or has this type of thing been done before? What are the good things that would happen?
(us Windows users are scared of change...)
"Derp de derp."
I love how Microsoft's grred seems to be thier very undoing. If they weren't trying to exapand ameoba-like into every single area that they could to suck up more tasty cash, then they would never have made XP Embedded.
For you decision makers out there, take thsi to heart: Blind Greed will NOT make you more successful. No matter how much shareholder value you *think* you can add by being unethical, greedy, or sleazy, you will find that you will be losing twice as much value when your actions catch up to you. Stop basing your decisions on thier results for next week and start basing them on their value in the next decade!
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
what will stop MS from making Office require IE?
What will stop them form making Windows without IE crash every 15 minutes?
What will stop it from forcefully removing HTML rendering & ActiveX with IE, an invite them to install IE when Kazaa tells them it needs mshtml.dll? (Or is that a good thing - Kazaa will stop showing banners using IE? My version of Kazaa Lite still shows pop-ups.)
Finally, what will stop them from shipping the non-modular version with PCs and requesting that people buy the normal one for $XXX?
Suppose that in the future, some Windows XP version is going to be used on a PDA that has no hard drive. This means all the software has to reside in some form of memory, which probably will require refreshes (as in DRAM), even if the PDA is turned off.
For the autonomy of the PDA, limiting the amount of data (and code, which is data) stored in memory is vital: modern PDAs are able to turn off the unused part of memory, not to spill any battery power on refreshing that part of memory.
When a user can select the components installed on his system, he can limit the memory used for his needs of the moment.
And if he can choose to install software from different vendors, he would probably have greater freedom in choosing between more functionallity (meaning larger programs) and longer autonomy.
Bjorn De Sutter
http://www.elis.rug.ac.be/~brdsutte
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.
Wouldn't this be good? You could really tweak the system to what you need it to do (I know, if i really wanted to i should use Linux) where i would use a bootloader for each tweaked system... Forcing MS to release APIs, file formats, network protocols would be the kiss of death for MS. Anti trust is to help me, the consumer, not kill the company.
let's remember that 98lite was "modularizing" windows years ago. i still have a box running a completely ie-free version of 98se in my daughter's room.
Yeah.
Here are a few obvious applications, all following one basic principle: not everyone needs everything, and a large chunk of the market wants to be able to do one thing well.
1. Audio workstations (DAW's)
2. Video/Graphics workstations
3. Killer gaming machines
4. Nice programming environment (!)
Etc...
I think Microsoft is plenty big enough and has plenty of expertise to begin offering market segment versions of Windows. If people wanted to install other stuff, they could, but they'd have to download some libraries and *make the conscious choice* to take a performance hit.
I feel sort of evil suggesting this, but I'd like to support my theories on capitalism - the primary tenet being that the best long-term strategy is a good quality product that people want.
[|]
Maximum number of Microsoft articles per day exceeded. Core dumped.
I mean, really - I like to keep up on this case as much as the next guy, but we're up to what, four articles today? And the night's still young. How 'bout at least containing all the trial-related stuff into one wrap-up article per day, at least, and saving the "Microsoft eats small children for breakfast" filler ones that aren't breaking news for more of the off days?
Disgruntled but still reading the article,
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Uhh, hardly. If MS were required to do what the states want and release a version of Windows such that any of the components could be replaced, then that in itself would require the release of APIs and such. How is a third party component supposed to plug in to the OS and work as it should without full API disclosure? I can certainly see MS just releasing all that is absolutely necessary to replace components and simply saying that is "everything", but nothing short of an army of independent programmers taking over MS for months to scour the source will ever be able to prove otherwise.
Personally, I think its more important to go the way the states are--after the modularity argument. I couldn't give a crap less if there are "secret" APIs in Windows, as long as the ones necessary for plugging in third party components as replacements for IE and Media Player and such are fully documented and available for use.
Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
Why the hell should Microsoft alone be forced to open their APIs and file formats? "Rational Pricing" is subjective and is something that should be left as a decision to the consumer.
Microsoft's (correct, IMO, though I think they are wrong about a great many things) argument boils down to the fact that if they are forced to modularize Windows support calls will be something like this in the future:
"What OS do you have?"
"Windows Modular"
"Sigh...Ok, well, open up a command line and change directories to C:\Windows\SYSTEM32, type dir. Do you see an MSHTML.DLL file there?"
"No"
"Ok well your version of Windows Modular has no IE support. Do a search/findfiles on your system, is there a Mozilla.exe? Perhaps it was OEMed into your version of Windows Modular."
"Nope, nothing."
"Well here's the point where I'd tell you to download the latest drivers off our site but your version of Windows Modular has no HTTP or FTP capable client so you're SOL. Thank you have a nice day."
Enforcement is always the problem. Who wants a government agency watching every release to see it complies? Who need smore length drawn out trials and hearings?
Let M$ 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
Why have I never seen discussion about 98lite which is a stripped down windows?
I'd've thought that proved it....
Buckets,
pompomtom
"There's an exception to every rule. Except for some rules"
I don't think I've ever before heard someone denigrate Microsoft by referring to a version of Windows as being "robust and reliable."
Jesus saves....And takes 1/2 damage.
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!
Surely that's impossible. A modular operating system would skew time space and make all insides outside and all rights left. Why, there would be thousands of versions of Windows if they did that! Everyone knows that what millions of people want is just exactly the same thing. It defies reason... a modular operating system... why I never!
At least, that's what Microsoft told me.
-pyrrho
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. :)
This debate leads us all in circles. The fact is - we all would like to see, in an ideal world, Microsoft crumble and an alternative come to power to provide us all equality, choice, perhaps even standardization. .dll file."
But the fact is, until that happens, Windows is the platform of choice. If there ever is a "modular Windows," it will create HAVOC for developers.
Ever heard of "dependency hell?" Imagine that on Windows!
Imagine users, like your grandmother, getting errors like "Cannot install this nifty 50 dollar software package - missing required
Modular Windows is not the answer - limiting the dirty business practices (and probably more user friendly open source software) is.
Try a google search for sysocmgr.exe or sysoc.inf. O.C. in both cases stands for 'Optional Components'. IE, Windows messenger etc are removeable using the windows components dialog, Microsoft has just hidden them.
In fact, one of the top hits for the sysocmgr.exe search is from the MS knowedge base and titled "How to Add or Remove Windows Components with Sysocmgr.exe"
The strange this is that konqueror is not a web browser is it just a kpart display tool. By default it uses khtml for its drawing however you can have it use the mozilla rendering engine also for drawing which works just fine. On my copy of konqueror I just click on view -> view mode -> kmozilla and that works without problems. You could remove konqueror completely and most apps on kde wouldn't even notice since they embed the kpart not konqueror.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
"640K modules ought to be enough for anybody."
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
No, I can't see myself, or anyone else, paying for Internet Explorer, or Windows Media Player, or any of the add-ons that M$ is grafting into the OS to keep you from running a competitors product. Not that your cynicism isn't a good thing.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
Since when do we penalize people for their success?! Whats next? Are we going to force Tiger Woods to play with 3 clubs less than all other players because he has monopolized the majority of the golf tournament and diminished competition? Maybe have Michael Jordan play bare foot, perhaps we should have tied one of Joe Montana's hands behind his back when we had a chance.
rational pricing - I agree with all except this one. Instead how about a stiff fine to go along with the rest. They hurt consumers with their ir-"rational pricing" combined with their anti-competitive practices. Therefore, strip some of that profit away.
If their practices allowed for true competition, then who cares what their prices are? Competition would then set the product pricing. However, due to their practices, their pricing was not set by the market.
It does not work under Windows NT at all.
IE eradicator does not work under NT 2K SP2 or XP
It must not be forgotten that this in itself is a fragmentation of the Windows Platform.
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I know they exist, but I doubt that Microsoft has used them to any great extent. Remember, this trial is about Microsoft's business practices, not their programming practices. Microsoft has tried to deflect the issues by transferring attention to programming issues, hoping that the people involved in the trial don't understand the FUD that they're putting forth.
Bleh!
If Apple had 95% marketshare on the desktop, this would be happening to them.
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
os2fan wrote:
> IE eradicator does not work under NT 2K SP2 or XP
Do you know this from personal experience? Not being snotty, but the 98Lite website claims that it works under "Windows 95/98/Me/2000 in 8 different languages".
I've used 98Lite to give life to older Pentium machines and stripped out a lot of the garbage from Win98. They were subsequently faster and more reliable and ran Oracle apps without complaint.
WWW
In networks this is a good thing to have standard layouts, since the config files are easier to understand/maintain.
On the other hand, the more an intruder can expect to find ready installed, the more easily damage can be done. For example, IE is usually installed as well as OutLook. Holes in these allow external programs to intrude and run VBasic.
A virus is quite likely to find another host near by, which explains the general nusiunce that MS virii cause.
On the other hand, if a virus is not likely to encounter LookOut on a Windows machine, then it can not exploit LookOut holes as readily.
A virus that is shopping around for Bill's IIS module, and finding it easily, spreads much faster than one that exploits a hole in Joe's IIS, and then lands at Sally's IIS [which has a different set of holes], does not travel anywhere near as fast.
The fact is that Bill wants to lace his apps with lots of gheewhiz toys, and put them on every desktop, [a process that introduces monoculture], is what spreads viruses, just like the Irish Potato Blight.
I can't see any alternative to an open source modular windows.
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
The web site also state what I claimed, that it does not work under 2K SP2 or XP.
I am a registered user of it.
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
One has versions of 3rd party runtimes for compilers, such as BWLL.DLL or EMXRT, which has version numbers. Some apps actually require version 0.9d or better installed.
It's more to do with openness of the API, and the willingness of vendors to support the APIs.
It's not hard. I mean, before Windows, we had DOS, where every DOS game and application had to support sound cards, video cards, printers, etc on their own. So there's no real hassle about having a standard streaming interface, and allowing any streaming utility (eg QT, RealPlayer, MPlayer) handle this. This is what is meant by being modular. Two different programs can talk to each other meaningfully.
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
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.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
If Windows XP embedded already exists ... and it solves the problems that the states are complaining about, then what's the problem? Just buy that.
You know it always amazes me that Microsoft claims that they can't create a modular OS. Someone should tell them that there is this company called Microsoft that has made a technology called COM, which should solve the problem nicely. Uh, oh yeah, nevermind...
He ripped-out the BSOD module since that is the most useless module ever.
It would be even worse if the BSOD module starts to load itself while in the middle of the court session.
Because they're criminals, and that's less extreme remedy for their criminal behavior than revoking their corporate charter (which is my preferred choice, but I know it won't fly).
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Bach will testify that his modular version of Windows was "robust and reliable," Kollar-Kotelly said, citing the states' submission. The states named Bach as one of two witnesses they want to call at the end of the case to rebut some of Microsoft's arguments. Microsoft attorneys strongly objected, saying the states should have brought Bach into the case earlier when they were presenting their initial case. Funny; they first say that a modular Windows is impossible and at best has shoddy performance (as opposed to Windows Me, for example? But that's another story...), and now their best defense is that the prosecution should have said that they were going to be proven wrong beforehand? I'm not really a legal expert, so I'll need someone to clear me up on the subject, but isn't that what the prosecution usually tries to do in a court case? I think it's pretty cool that they waited until now, actually -- now Microsoft's defense, which they've been using as a cloak for months, has entirely been stripped from them; the very base of their defense is (well, technically, WILL be) officially a lie. One could imagine a conversation in the courtroom: Defense attorney: Windows canNOT be seperated. It'll reduce the performance to that of... um... something worse than it al... I mean, than... well, I don't see YOU trying to write a modular Windows! Prosecution: We have here a robust and modular version of Windows, which is physical proof that the defense's statement is false. Defense: Yeah, but... juuuudge, they're not playing nice! They won't let us know what evidence they have until they want to use it! Judge: *sigh* Again, I'm not a legal guy, so this is just what goes through my head when I read this article.
Danish != nationality
I can send you a text file copy of the WindowsXP licencing agreement. Windows XP readilly spits out the darn thing when you look for it, and it's easily readable by anyone who can get through the GPL (or even just do their taxes.)
;)
in an nutshell: "standard EULA stuff" "we owe you, at the most, $5 legal liabity for anything WinXP does", "If you come use our services, we'll sell anonymous stats" "If we help to fix you, you won't sue us" "If it randomly breaks, it's not our fault."
Nothing in there about small children whatsoever. Please, drop the anti-MS FUD. Their EULA is evil and one-sided and not negotiated and a general sick twist of the way things should be, but it's not as complex as the contracts to sell your soul to Satan.
Satan, by the way, give a warranty.
No sensible person wants a slew of different 3rd party versions of Windows. There are already enough versions to give us all ulcers! I really think that this whole idea of modular versions of Windows was proposed by a Microsoft mole just to make the whole thing inherently undoable. I think all anyone with any sense wants is to be able to uninstall Internet Explorer if they want and still be able to use Windows to connect with the Internet using some other browser that was designed for use with the core Windows OS. I think people are just fed up with Microsoft's brown-shirted bullying and scare tactics. I think the majority of the computer using public (hi, all you Joe Blows out there) does want more choices. Of course they don't want a dizzying array of choices, but a few would be nice. It would also be nice if the consumer could choose a application suited to their individual needs and not have the app and the OS constantly arguing about who is in charge!
Oh, and here's a haiku for you:
Shut your filthy gob
You tiny-brained underling
I won't be your dupe!
Some are given suckers and some get lollipops
All you need to do is forcibly delete MSN Messenger to demonstrate Window's "modularability". Yep, I need that vital component to run the OS, don't you?
You need a FREE iPod Nano
I know our school would pay quite a premium for a "non-integrated" Windows. The district has decreed that all desktops must have Windows on them, and the license is basically for the newest version only. Thus, our Win2K (XP hasn't been deployed yet) installs have all sorts of non-removeable crap on them. Do you think that students would rather do work or play Minesweeper, screw off making crudely drawn well-endowed men in Paint and chat in Netmeeting? The programmer who thought up Windows File Protection should be drawn and quartered. Modular Windows Forever!
That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
This just proves that Microsoft can separate IE from Windows. Sice all there components are modularized, all they need to do is take out the IE module right? No wonder M$ is scared!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Little did Mr Bach know that he had invited a lawsuit from the 600lb gorilla. Do States witness' have indemnity for their testimony? If so I guess he has no problem. I imagine that Bill's lawyers are drawing up dockets against Mr Bach at this very moment. -Bob
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Welcome to the Advanced windows XP setup.
With this new version of Windows you now have the choice of which modules you install on your system.
Which components would you like to install?
- Windows core files (Required)
- Desktop "enhancements" (Required)
- Internet Explorer 6.0 (Required)
- Fatal exception core files (Required)
- Illegal Operation Scripting Engine(tm)(Required)
- Security Backdoor Enhancements (Required)
Come on! What's all this yap about different kernel versions, different networking implementations, different yada yada? The point here is not to turn Windows into Linux, complete with competing packages and kernels, but to build a Windows that you can add other software to, and have it work as well and reliably as Microsoft's own.
Yes, the only way to do this is with open APIs. But please recognize the distinction between things like Office and Internet Explorer (even Windows Explorer, for that matter), what should be standalone applications - and are standalone on normal platforms. We're not talking about TCP/IP implementation or the windowing system - those are rightly within the OS realm.
Productivity apps are not. That includes media players and everything else that doesn't usually interact directly with the hardware. Remember what "OS" stands for? It's an underlying platform that supports other apps - MS is trying to claim that what are independent apps on other platforms can't be separated from Windows. They sure as hell can make Office and WMP and Internet Explorer for Mac OS, but not for Windows? I don't think so.
And I don't understand why the states haven't brought Apple into the courtroom. They're a consumer OS maker, they make all the same functional apps as Microsoft, and they don't claim OS X won't run without the QuickTime player. Who else could show as well that IE and WMP can stand alone, but the company that MS makes standalone versions for?
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?
as soon as this guy gets up to take the stand MS is gonna get him tossed in jail for DMCA violations, confiscate the software as evidence, sue the states, and demand a mistrial for the judge allowing illegal evidence
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.
And the mc file manager uses the lynx html engine, and ...
Er, no. MC works perfectly fine as a file manager without needing an html engine at all, and guess what?
It is faster, easier to use, and I use it all the time for managing files - inside a GUI. I have never liked the gmc/kfm etc filemanagers which are still trying to render their cutesy icons while mc has done listing all files. Text mode file managers are noticeably faster than GUI ones, especially at hopping back and forth between viewing the contents of a file and viewing a file list.
HTML file managers are pretty, but slow. Even the old binary filemanagers (eg Win95 explorer) were faster than the browser based ones (eg Win98 explorer) - as the 98lite site will tell you. HTML file mangers exist for cutesy marketing reasons (let's make everything "web like"), not for efficiency.
I am anarch of all I survey.
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.
I agree. Only thing is.. MS Windows XP Professional vs MS Window XP Home Edition vs Win95. They have done it to some extent. I mean, if you want a stripped down version of windows, go to Win3.11 You can still get it around. This is like going to Sony and saying, I want to buy your Trinitron TV but in red, without the remote control and without the on screen display? Why should MS be forced to do this? They shouldn't!
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
BTW this post refers to the Anonymous Coward Post (for you people that have a threshold set)
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
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.
Interesting choice of operating systems... That they would choose the embedded version of XP, which though I have yet to use, I would assume would be designed entirely separately from the desktop version given that it's designed, as I would assume from the name, for embedded systems.
They should have chosen a desktop version, since that's what the debacle is really over.
From the article on ZDNet:"But the software giant says it would be technically impossible to offer multiple versions of Windows and would create havoc for consumers and the computer industry."
What are WinME, Win2000 and WinXP then? Ever since Win3.1 and WinNT3.5 MS has been "offering" multiple versions of Windows.
CKK: Come now, if you're so sure it's impossible to have a modular version of Windows, why not let him demo it?
Microsoft's Lawyer: <stewie voice>Damn the modules, and damn you!</stewie voice>
Tastes like burning! - Ralph Wiggum
You guys always bitch about MS spreading FUD, but this (above) comment is FUD.
You can't knock it until you try it. Windows comes with IE, it has since 97. It is a fact of life. Did it ever prevent anyone from using Netscape? I know I can use it with out problem. Hell you even get a little pop up message asking if you are sure you want Netscape as your default browser. That doens't seem to be a bully. It seems like you were given a choice.
I will say this on a side note. There are more versions of Linux than there are of windows. You can't say MS gives you ulcers without agreeing you just got a kidney infection from the Linux selection out there. 30+ distros. Come on. That is a headache in itself. There isn't that many versions of Windows. Then again new versions are theorhetically better. 95,98,ME,XPhome... all newer and better versions than the last. Don't forget NT4, 2000, XP Pro. A nice simple selection. Not, Slackware linux, lindows, Debian, Suse, mandrake, red hat, etc etc etc. (I am not typing them all)
What I am saying is don't spread FUD if you are against it. Practice what your preach.
~Admrlnxn
"I got your mom in my trunk"
This is like going to Sony and saying, I want to buy your Trinitron TV but in red, without the remote control and without the on screen display? Why should MS be forced to do this? They shouldn't!
Nonsense! It's nothing like that. If the Sony Trinitron came with a toaster sticking out the side that couldn't be removed without disabling the TV, that would be closer to this situation with MS. In such a case, I don't think it would out of line for consumers to want a Trinitron TV without a toaster! Who needs it? Just eat your pop-tarts cold!
Some are given suckers and some get lollipops
These people better watch out what they try to make happen.
Modular Windows Would Cost More!
Why do I say this?
Think about it... XP currently ships with lots of middleware 'built-in'. When you sell a product like a OS, it is easy and marginally INEXPENSIVE to simply add a few dozen middleware applications and only raise the total cost of the OS by a few dollars, if even that.. MS has $199 and $299 set as target prices for the home and pro versions of the OS, so they probably don't have qualms about adding in a few more middleware apps without raising the price.
However, if you sell a bare-bones XP, you now have to purchase all of those middleware apps separately. You could by them from Microsoft, which are a good bet they will work perfectly with the OS. Or you could buy them from 3rd party sources, which probably will work just fine, maybe better, (or worse) than the current MS apps.
Regardless, consumers will then need to buy 5-20 additional middleware apps for the price of $5-$100 each. $19.95 would be an average price, roughly.
So instead of consumers currently paying $299 for the whole collection of OS and middleware, they will pay $99 for the OS, then pay $400 more to get the same functionality.
I can just see a bunch of consumers sueing MS 6 months after MS is forced to sell a bare-bones OS, because then MS will be making MORE money, and consumers will get reduced functionality and more hassle and expenses.
Gotta watch out what you ask for, you just might get it!
www.Beyond7.com Insane modern art water sculpture.
If it is Sony's business to sell Trinitrons with toasters popping out but not sell ones without, why can't they? We should allow the market place of the consumers to decide what's best.
How far should we go? Should pens not come with pen caps, because that limits the competition on pen caps? Should cars not come with radios? etc etc...
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
Not MS. This is an MS decision and MS would just do as it always has and forward them to the OEM.
Sorry chief, if Sony owned ~90% of the toaster market and all toastable food came preformed to only fit their toaster and then they decided to add a special sony TV that only received Sony channels to the side of the toaster thereby making anyone who wants a toaster also ahve to purchase and use a SONY tv, thats an abuse of monopoly power and thereby ILLEGAL
Since when did the price of Windows ever reflect in any way on the price of the included applications. MS would be absolutely boneheaded to charge a single cent for any "middleware" stuff like IE, bla bla bla etc. You can be guaranteed that they will be free of charge.
This would simply put MS in a level playing field and treat MS the way it treated Netscape and others.
Again, you're being absurd. Of course Sony can do what they want. And consumers can start buying Phillips electronics if they offer TVs without toasters and the people want them. Your mistake here is that you think I'm making a judgment about the morality of offering TVs with toasters sticking out of the side, when in fact I am merely questioning the accuracy of your previous analogy. As to pens without pen caps... they make them. See you click on a little button and the penpoint pops out of the barrel. No cap needed. And you can get a car without a radio, dumbass! You'll shave about a hundred bucks off the sticker price.
Some are given suckers and some get lollipops
I agree with the principle of having a stripped down version of windows which will run faster and be less bloated. I cannot stand outlook express nor MSN Messenger (though I can thankfully delete its DLLs). I also see the arguments that if you strip out basic functionality that third party developers are expecting, you cause a big mess. That's a very valid point to me. I recently encountered a situation which seemed to me the opposite path of Microsoft -- instead of including everything it can, this company (Mathworks) included as little as it could. When you want to use an additional feature, you pay for it. Specifically, I wanted to compile matlab code into C++ code. So let's say you have the basic Matlab release 12.1. To compile matlab code written in Matlab, you need to Matlab compiler. That's $200 (Academic pricing). Fine. I understand. Not everyone needs a compiler, so it can be extra. But you get the compiler, and you realize that really, you also need the Matlab C/C++ Math Libraries, since in Matlab you do, well, math. The libraries are another $200, and if you want to do anything like image manipulation, you need another set of libraries. Since everything you do in matlab is pretty much math, having a compiler without math libraries is worthless. They should sell both together for the combined cost ($400), but they don't since the lower cost brings them more customers who buy just the compiler for $200 before finding out that to use it they'll need to shell out another $200.
Personally, as much as I hate the features I don't use because of the bloat, I like the ones I do use. I like the fact that Explorer can open zip files, and that I can burn CDs without using that stupid easy CD creater (though I prefer cloneCD myself). Imagine if Microsoft did the same thing as Matlab -- they sell you the operating system for $10. As soon as you install it, you realize you didn't buy the keyboard package that allows you to use a keyboard with your system. You buy that, and then you realize that you also need the usb package so you can plug your keyboard in. Granted, most computers have keyboards, but for those that don't (like dedicated servers that never get accessed locally), isn't a keyboard driver just bloat and slowing the system down? There's a very fine line...
Well done.
Because then no one will download their software if it is expensive. MS would rightly get the treatment back that they gave to Netscape and others. They really, really deserve it.
Actually a great many features in OSX, and even in OS9, won't work without Quicktime installed. Quicktime is far more than a media player, it comprises and entire layer of APIs for manipulating all forms of media. It is used to display desktop pictures, previews in the Finder, and for core functionality of tons of apps. Removing Quicktime, at this point, would drastically break the Mac OS.
I'm not getting sucked into this debate, but at least get your facts straight.
Cheers
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.
Perhaps that is true now. On the other hand, Mozilla's Gecko is a piece of open source software. Surely it COULD be given a new API so it would be compatible with the IE HTML widget. All it takes is time - developer time and QA time.
Releasing a modular Windows is a smart move for MS whether or not they are "forced" to do it. It will help them become an even more ever-present monopoly. And they get this as a "sanction."
Don't I remember hearing about how Microsoft wanted to become the world's biggest ASP(Application Service Provider) i.e. modular Windows provider? That is, they wanted to and I believe still want to sell use of ALL Windows components on a per use basis.
They gave examples of people who only need to use Word a few times a year. In fact I thought all of their latest licensing schemes were supposed to help "ease" the transition of companies to the per use ASP model. Windows XP has support for this to some extent already. It's just not being used/persued due to the licensing backlash; hence, the "Windows is not modular" argument.
Isn't this the definition of modularity? Use the software for a little bit, then it gets uninstalled again. Need to use it again, the new improved version will automatically be downloaded. Kind of like a browser plugin that uninstalls itself.
I'm surprised the lawyers haven't used this argument already.
We reached a 3-borg limit on the same /. page!!!
(I know it's a little offtopic.... but at least let me scream!)
667 The Neighbour of the Beast
Good article on OSopinion on Windows XP and dependencies/modularity. I thought I saw the author, Adam Barr, post on this discussion, but I think this link didn't come up.
My workstation install is under the 200MB, its just depending on what you install.
;)
You can install a base system with X under 40MB add some window manager and some apps and yoru far under the few hundred meg.
Goodluck trying
None of us use windows, right?
RIGHT?
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
One of Microsoft's complaints about a modular version of Windows for consumers, of course, is the idea that it'll be impossible to support.
Except that Microsoft doesn't support OEM versions of Windows anyway. Support of Windows is done by the manufacturer, not by Microsoft. It's been that way for as long as I've been involved in the computer industry (Win3.0 days).
Others have pointed out the problems of differing versions of dynamically linked DLLs, and the problems with statically linking them (and producing 20 copies of mfc40.dll). I would suggest that isn't necessarily a Bad Thing. I have spent many, many hours tracking down and killing every version of WINSOCK.DLL to get somebody's DUN working.
Remove the caps and hold to a mirror.
What would prevent Windows only hardware,(one of the big obsticals that alternitive systems have), would be require that there ELUA for the DDK states 'All derived works must be open source etc...'
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
That's fine until Sony have 90% of the TV market and then start saying to retailers: "Sell our Trinitrons with toasters or we stop supplying you altogether (good luck in the 10% of the market we don't yet own)". At that point (the abuse of the legally obtained monopoly) the toaster makers have a legitimate complaint.
It is the element of force/extortion/blackmail that makes MS a criminal organisation.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
My list:
...
# mandatory open APIs
# open file formats
That's it. The rest will come from the united league of open source gods
Samba would be 100% complete, if all protocols were 100% documented. The same for import/export filters for MS Office. The same for an Exchange clone. The same for Active Directory. The same for Win32Api.
You don't need to split up MS. You don't need to dictate prices. You don't need to modularize Windows. Document everything 100%. And the monopoly will be gone in a few years.
Bye egghat.
-- "As a human being I claim the right to be widely inconsistent", John Peel
Too late... I run OS X and I turn off my desktop to improve windowing performance. I don't like previews in the finder so I turn that off as well. WMP doesn't seem to use any Quicktime APIs. I don't consider any of those things to be part of the OS... widgets and bells and whistles maybe but not a part of the OS.
They really are just APIs to added value libraries. IE uses these APIs to show QT movies embedded in HTML, so does Mozilla and Opera but they certainly aren't 'required' components for the OS, just libraries for the QT/Sorenson codec. The same APIs and libraries that allow Windows to play QT.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
at least at today's memory and disk prices.
Ever hear of DLL hell? I think it might not be an unreasonable price to pay to ensure applications are self contained and installing (or uninstalling) an application doesn't affect other previously installed applications adversely. Plus, the more self contained an application is, the better chance you have to run it under an alternative Win32 implementation like WINE.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The outcome of the trial is irrelevant. MS products reflect the capabilities and requirements of their core user base. MS operating systems are dummed down because that IS what 98% of the population needs/demands. Compare OS to TV... When Wrestling, Jerry Springer and "Reality" series are the top rated shows, should anyone be suprised that MS is ahead in the market? Meanwhile, I'll slink back to watching PBS and the Discovery Channel while my Linux hoard churns away in the corner quietly oblivious to the crumbling world around it...
next($sig) unless($sig =~
...then KDE must be bad too, because it's at least equally tightly integrated to Konqueror. Perhaps more so.
First off, I'm not a programmer, so if I come across sounding like I don't know what I'm talking about it's because I don't.
.dll. This always struck me as a silly idea. Sure, you're saving HD space by sharing libraries between programs, but you're also creating an environment where one program can easily break another.
.dlls in the c:\windoze\system directory and God knows where else. Does this strike anyone else as a Bad Thing?
.dlls into their own directories and live with the extra 10-20% increase in size (which I'm willing to accept) or require that if you create a different version of a .dll then you give it a new name. It is a different library, after all.
That said, it's been my experience (or maybe I've been listening to too much M$ FUD) that a significant percentage of Windows' instability is the result of different programs installing different (and somewhat incompatible) versions of the same
It also results in the files for a particular program being scattered around the filesystem. If I choose to install FuMaker 2.0 and later decide to remove it, I have to use the (unreliable) uninstaller. I can't just delete c:\progra~1\fumaker2 `cause then I end up leaving a bunch of
I was surprised when I started playing with Linux and learned that it also uses shared libraries. The way I see it there are two solutions: have programs install their own
If someone could explain the error in my reasoning here I'd greatly appreciate it.
-Cybrex
Boundless Expansion, Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, Intelligent Technology, Spontaneous Order- BEST DO IT SO!
The user also doesn't want to pay more than they have to for their OS, and they want to encourage as much innovation as the market can bear.
Wouldn't the iMac fit the bill perfectly? I haven't used one, so I can't say for sure, but isn't the iMac just that, an appliance for web browsing and email? If so then maybe the average home user needs to start buying products like that rather than buying Mircrosoft because it's a business standard.
I've never been a big fan of the iMac, just because it's a diluted computer, and being a tech person I'm not in favor of the dummied down version. But a lot of people could use a dummied down version of a computer, and if it's already out there, maybe it should get used more.
Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
I guess it's too late now, but I think the prosecution should have called Steve McConnell as a witness. You know, the guy who's written a number of highly-respected software development books which tout such best practices as "de-coupling" (i.e., making it easy to do what the states what to do).
Assuming that Steve would be honest (he's not an employee, after all), it would be interesting to see the defense squirm when the author who Microsoft thinks enough of to feature all 3 of his MS Press books on their Best Practices page says that not only can Windows be made modular, but it's poorly designed if it isn't modular.---------------------------------------------
SERENITY NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
All these posts about how Embedded XP doesn't make sense on the desktop, or that a modularized windows "would be bad for consumers" are laughably beside the point. MS broke the law and fucked up the computer market. Now, they want to continue those practices because the market is so fucked up that any change will be "bad for..(the market, the technology, the industry, the consumer, the customers, whatever)".
The nicest comparison I can think of is the guy that murdered his parents and pleaded for mercy because he was an orphan. Come on.
If MS refuse to help develop reasonable changes to stop these criminal practices, then what choice does the court have but to impose the best remedy they can under the circumstances? And if that remedy is really bad, who is at fault? The court? The refusnik states? The DOJ?
It is not the business of the Federal Court to understand the computer industry. Or to find the perfect forward-looking, past-wrong addressing remedy. Judge CKK can only look at what she has been presented in court, formulate the best remedy possibly based on that material, and ensure MS complies with that remedy. If she can do that and not be overturned on appeal, you can expect law students to study her decision for generations.
NEWS FLASH! PCs have become REALLY REALLY BIG.
DLL's were created to reduce the memory foot-print and have caused versionning headaches and compatibility problems ever since. They were a stop-gap measure to a problem that no longer exists.
Saving RAM? Who gives a fuck? Not the user. Not the developpers. And not the hardware manufacturers.
Write your code properly so you don't load the baby with the bath water and the kitchen sink into your code (trim the library's fat at link time) and the increase in executable size may still be less than the amount of RAM wasted by unused portions of the libraries.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
1. If the government defines that X, Y, Z. Define an OS and anyhting more are considered add ons. Then EVERY OS must be made to the same standard.
Why is no-one throwing up their arms that Apple purchased the manufacturer of SpruceDVD, and now includes that software with the MAC OS, and BTW they cut off the PC users of the software.
How about Mac's movie making capabilities that come with the OS. Shouldn't we allow Adobe to sue Apple like we let Netscpae sue MS.
Just because MS has a majority of the market, doesn't mean we should force them to make an inferior product. If we force them to remove the browser, Media player, Movie Maker, Outlook Exp, then we should force Apple, BeOS, Linx, and others to do the same thing.
I can buy a Intel PC from Compaq running a different OS than windows. Can you buy a Macintosh computer without MAC OS?
If all it takes is MS selling their own hardware with their OS, and making their OS unavailable to other compatible systems... then what?
I'm not defending MS, I just trying to make the point that if you create a standard for the OS, and force a basic version, it should be required of all the companies that make an OS.
I personaly wouldn't buy a stripped version. I would however like to know why a basic install of XP is nearly 1GB. Where as 2000 was 300Mb???
Brian
Helpdesk Administrator
Biggest Dilbert Company Known to Man
MS: "Your honor, I object!"
judge: "on what grounds?"
MS: "On the grounds that it's damaging to my case!"
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
Flaimbait? Surely you can do better than that - Mr Crack Moderator!
Offtopic? Possibly...
Cheers!
Yes, but if it's a choice between two evils, I want to decide what flavor of evil will be used on my computer.
Some are given suckers and some get lollipops
> The non-settling states told the judge that
;^) (obviously the "fame and fortune" from this slick move will be worth quite a bit more, but the MS dev community *is* pretty tight-knit in my experience)
> Virginia-based computer testing consultant, James Bach,
> had built his modular version of Windows using
> Microsoft's own technology.
>
> Bach, who has worked as a contractor for Microsoft...
... but who will never be allowed to work for them again...
I sure hope this guy has a night job. Pretty ballsy for a Windows programmer to not mind getting blacklisted by Redmond!
It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.