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.
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!"
... 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!
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."
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)
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.
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 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".
Microsoft: It can't be done! It can't be done!
States: Yes it can, and we can prove it!
Microsoft: Damn!
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 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."
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 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?
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.
"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.) "
Fair point. It seems to me that the solution, then, is that Office works like Write or Notepad. You can choose not to install those, and there's no impact to your system. But if you uninstall Outlook Express, then Outlook 2000 won't work.
Yes, I'd definitely love if MS was prevented from modifying the system with Office.
The problem I can forsee is that this openness could be abused by computer manufacturers such as Gateway. I could see them making their distro of Windows be so convulted that computer illiterates will stick with only that distro. In other words, in the long run, I can see one monopoly being traded for another.
Maybe I'm overimaginitive. It's just that every time I see the 'modular Windows' headline, I picture my aunt calling me and asking me how to fix something on her computer, and I'd have no idea how to because Windows is different.
"Derp de derp."
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.
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 $worse;
Enforcement is always the problem. Who wants a government agency watching every release to see it complies? Who need smore length drawn out trials and hearings?
Let M$ 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. :)
Firstly, it would not be in Gateway's interest to cram more complexity into the system - it makes it slower (on the same hardware), and it makes it harder to use and support. They would be the ones pushing modularity - in part, because it will allow them to sell extra OS modules separately and earn on both ends of the scale (save on support of a simple desktop, and take in extra cash for souped-up desktop).
Secondly, Gateway is not a monopoly in any sense. There is plenty of competition in desktops, and even more competition in notebooks. The barrier of entry in desktop market is so low that even companies with bad business plans can enter and make their own beige boxes. Many do, in fact. Monopoly is where no other player can play, and that would be MS. Gateway (or Dell) is not any more monopoly than WinAmp is a monopolist in MP3 playing on Windows.
I picture my aunt calling me and asking me how to fix something on her computer, and I'd have no idea how to because Windows is different.
It is already different between Win95, Win98, Win2K and WinXP. You'd find more similarities between Linux distributions than between OEMized releases of various Windows... Differences between IBM and Dell preloads are so great that you barely could find anything in common! Since the OS lacks the utilities, both OEMs load tons of 3rd party software to compensate, and you are on your own figuring out which app on which desktop restores the registry, for example, or plays DVD...
As frustrating as it might be that they don't always release the specs on such things as their network protocols and file formats, I fail to see why government should be able to force them to do so?
They developed all of that on their own, using their own development dollars. Of course the competition would love to get a free handout so they can stop expending energy reverse-engineering things for MS compatibility. That doesn't mean it's the right/just thing to do.
Honestly, I've got plenty of issues with Microsoft and their business tactics - but from the start, govt. has royally screwed up this entire "monopoly" case against them. Until every computer sold today is incapable of running any code that's not provided by MS, I just don't think it's provable that they're a monopoly.
You want reasonable things to attack Microsoft over? How about "false advertising" when their OS's promise such things as "stable, reliable, and faster than before!" when they're so often not any of these? How about challenging the enforcability of their rules preventing end users from reselling OEM editions of MS software, even if they've never broken the shrink-wrap? Perhaps even investigate the legality of their artificial inflation of their "net worth" by partially paying their employees in Microsoft stock?
To me, these types of issues are much more concrete and "to the point" than battling over whether or not including Internet Explorer with the OS and choosing not to let other companies throw some default icons on the desktop at start-up makes them a "monopoly".
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"
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
I have 100% microsoft OS on my webserver, and it never crashes either. Funny how these things work... :)
I have a 100% Microsoft OS on one of my servers at work too, and it never crashes either.... it hangs!
There's a difference you know.
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.
Do you really think that computer companies like Gateway and Dell will sell "streamlined" Windows PC, given the chance? Even today, if you buy a "non-modularized" Windows PC from Gateway or Dell, it is completely infested with bad advertising and bad third-party apps. I'm always surprised that "Mom and Pop" users can even get any productive work done when these bad apps try to take over their computers.
cpeterso
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!
"... it would not be in Gateway's interest to cram more complexity into the system - it makes it slower (on the same hardware), and it makes it harder to use and support. They would be the ones pushing modularity - in part, because it will allow them to sell extra OS modules separately and earn on both ends of the scale"
It wouldn't be, but they're doing it as of a couple of years ago. My Gateway machine had tons of extra apps that I had 0 interest in playing with. It was hard to imagine that anybody would really. It was nice that it had RealPlayer and Netscape and all, but my system tray had probably 8 or 9 items on it at first boot. I think that was their secret plan to get me to pay a premium for more RAM.
"It is already different between Win95, Win98, Win2K and WinXP."
True. However, the apps are the same. Outlook, IE, Calculator, you name it, are all the same on whatever flavor of Windows you are running.
"Differences between IBM and Dell preloads are so great that you barely could find anything in common! Since the OS lacks the utilities..."
Exactly my point! If IBM and Dell preloads are that bad, why make it even more confusing by allowing them to get rid of the common apps in Windows? As for the OS lacking utilities, you are right, except we're talking about apps not maintenence. I'm an Opera user, but I can fire up IE and talk my aunt through using IE. If she has Netscape but not IE, well what am I supposed to do to help her? They could make a distro of Windows that'd pretty much guarantee future business from their customers.
At this point, I'd much prefer they use Linux instead. The Linux community will not allow a company like Gateway to pull a stunt like that.
"Derp de derp."
Or if it happened earlier with the release of The Phantom Menace, the judge could have decided whether or not Jar Jar Binks was needed...
(Or maybe even AOTC, though I hear he only has a small part (one small part too many))
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
Maybe; maybe not. But it is important that they are free to do so if they want to. If Dell doesn't want - fine; then other people should be free to assemble their own boxes and put whatever OS they want on them, not only what MS or RedHat want them to.
Even today, if you buy a "non-modularized" Windows PC from Gateway or Dell, it is completely infested with bad advertising and bad third-party apps.
These boxen are not for geeks, they are for "Mom and Pop" style customers, as you mention. Dell business offerings are more conservative, as I witnessed many times myself.
I'm always surprised that "Mom and Pop" users can even get any productive work done when these bad apps try to take over their computers.
Productive? Of course not. But they don't know what it even _is_ to be productive with a computer.
IMO, it's just stupid sales tactics. But it works for majority of home users who like and want "cool" factor. Geeks don't want the junk, and often assemble their own boxen from parts, for half the price of a brand name box.
If IBM and Dell preloads are that bad, why make it even more confusing by allowing them to get rid of the common apps in Windows?
It's a big philosophical question. You can have a democracy, or you can have an absolute monarchy. You can not combine them. Currently we have a monarch (MS) who rules every aspect of every user's life. In a democracy everyone - from OEM to users - would be free to rule their own lives as they see fit, and let the market (and evolution) do its weeding. There are advantages and disadvantages in both approaches. Make your choice!
Market. Small modules are easier to replace with 3rd party software. WINE project would be the perfect candidate to fill the gaps.
Componentized Windows would be -extremely- good for ISVs, and this will convert this big and bloated Windows OS into a lean kernel with extensions on top of it (as it was designed all along!), and this will result in more competition.
Microsoft is going to try to milk their punishment to their advantage, in any case.
Of course. It would be stupid of them to do it any differently.
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.
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.
The whole idea of an "embedded" Windows is modularity. This was a HUGE selling point in WinCE and WinNT/Embedded. For example, WinNT runs some document copiers, and some data storage units. Without ability to cut the fluff it would not be possible.
Secondly, a criminal can not stop the detective from investigating the crime just with an EULA. IMO (IANAL), just the appearance in court and demonstration before the judge (with judge's consent and full approval) would make it impossible for MS to prosecute.
Didn't you know that 48.5% of all statistics is made up on the spot? :-)
WRT tags, I use them to make the text easier to read, especially for people who are not native English speakers. I probably should be using shorter and better thought out sentences, but this is Slashdot, and there is no time to think ;-)
There is a big difference between "designing a hardware" for a specific task (kitchen appliance) and "pre-customizing software for a specific task". The latter can be altered; the former can't.
For example, if I want to deploy 100 Windows-based terminals for my clerks to register incoming and outgoing packages (if I were to own a warehouse), why would I possibly want IE or Outlook on them? Or even MSN? In such case, customization is good. In fact, most big companies already do that - within limits imposed by MS - to standardize their Windows images on all boxen.
Big Reason#1: Under the states plan the OEM & Wholesales price of the the stripped down version of windows would be 25% less than the full version. UNLESS Microsoft starts charging for the components, then the price is Full Version Price less the cost of all the components sold seperately.
So if Microsoft started charging $20 each for IE, Outlook Express, Windows Media Player, etc then the price of the stripped version of windows would be closer to $0
Basically MS will be forced to licence "Window XP Lite" and then give away the add-ons in hopes of keeping market share in Internet Technologies. Otherwise we will be back to when Windows 95 was first released and it was possible to make money selling a web browser, media player, etc and compete with MS on price. Thwarting all MS attemps to corner all online media formats.
absolute twaddle! you have the reasoning faculties of a shoe! if tiger woods bent all the other golfer's clubs before the tournament, then yes we would penalize him. if michael jordan was allowed to kick all the other players on the court in the scrotum, then yes people would say it was unfair. and maybe we should have tied one of joe montana's hands behind his back! i would have voted for the right hand.
Some are given suckers and some get lollipops
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.
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.
I don't understand your analogy?
A proper analogy would be if Tiger Woods invented the golf course that everyone plays on. The thing now is that, he does not own all the golf courses. People can play on others. In the same way, people can run a variety of other OS's, not just Windows. I just heard that some guy created this new OS called Linux or something like that..I don't know if it works or not.
MS hurts the competition in being able to get a majority of the people to use their system. They did this because they were good in what they did and they succeeded in what they want to do. Should we only watch basketball only if everyone on both teams is as good as Jordan? Should Jordan not be allowed to play because he's better than par?
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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?
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.
What you are suggesting is that all companies must give a level playing field. That McDonald must give out its special Big Mac Sauce, that Coca cola should give out its secret recipe for the soda, that Pfizer should give away the ingredients to make Viagra. This is just not the way that the world works. Companies sole purpose is to make money. Having a competitive edge is what makes one company succeed and one fail. Remember, we live in a capitalistic society. What you are suggesting is the communist ideals. Go read Marxist and/or Stalins writings, you'll see a lot of similarities between their ideals and your thoughts.
I'm not saying that you are absolutely wrong, I'm just saying that you are taking a rather simplistic view at the situation. The world is not fair. Not everything works on a level of fairness in which people have to look out for the benefit of the whole.
Now, let me ask you, what should MS have done with the browser market? Should they provide competitors with products to compete against them as you suggest ("3rd party's ability to develop a browser which easily replaces MSIE")? That is just suicide! Tell me one profitable company that has done that!
Does Sun go, oh here is the source code to Java and this is what would give you a competive edge? Or does a pharmaceutical company go..oh here is a drug that we spent 10 million dollars to research we'll just give it to you for free because we want competition?
Now here is the part that is confusing: "And I never in any way suggested that there should be a homgeneity of ability in the NBA." and also " the clubs represent a 3rd party's ability to develop a browser which easily replaces MSIE"
In one case you don't want homogenity and in the other, you are saying that MS is at fault for not providing homogenity?
Just think about it from a company's standpoint. Would you give your competitors a chance to compete with you directly if you have a lead?
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
instead of the much more rational goal of forcing Microsoft to release APIs, file formats, network protocols, and other such information
:)
Not even M$ understands Win32.
For the file formats, try wotsit.org (also - I have movies with junk at the beginning that mplayer can play but wmplayer 8 on XP will barf on - again, not even M$ understands file formats).
For the network protocols, read the freebsd source code
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..."
I support what the states are doing, but if anyone thinks that 'modular windows' will allow OEMs to pick the applications which best suit their users, they're being rather naive.
What OEMs typically do is to pick the apps which:
- they get paid to bundle
- or cost them nothing
- or cost them less than other apps they need which perform the same function
in that order.
The reason PCs come with loads of CDs and installed apps isn't because Gateway or whomever is being nice... it's usually because they were paid to bundle those apps with their systems.
In the case of very desirable apps they may bundle them for free, and in rare cases, for must-have apps (like CD/R burning software which comes with CD/R drives) they may actually pay a little (as little as possible, unless they think that having some specific software will increase their sales enough to make it worth paying more for).
Modular Windows will certainly create competition, stimulate business, and generate lots of jobs for BizDev types to make lucrative bundling deals.
Will the consumer benefit? In the end, yes. In the meantime, expect to see lots of crap software bundled in.
(Which means that Modular Windows would be a boon to the tech support market as well...)
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.
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..."
Well done.
It just works? Out of the box?
You mean like a Mac?
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan
Actually... what I'd like to see would be a return exactly to the Win95 package. I've brought this up before, but I'm not tired of it yet, so..
;) some basic writing tools, some basic system/admin tools, and the like.
Win95 was the OS plus some basic utilities: enough to get online (and download a better browser
The Plus Pack (sold separately) included a whole slew of other junk. This was a huge marketing success, and probably sold a helluva more copies as two lower-priced products than it ever would have as one higher-priced package (such as WinXP is today).
Now, in parallel to that, I'd like to see a core release of WinXP -- basic internet and system/admin tools, and pretty much the same utility set as Win95 had.
And put all the other crap in an XP-Plus Pack, sold separately.
That way those who only need or only want the core OS can have that without all the glitz, and can buy and install their own choices for other stuff. Those who want the glitz or just want all their applets in a single package can buy the Plus Pack.
And of course this would priced more rationally too, akin to Win95 and the original Plus Pack prices. That is, the core OS would be about half the current (IMO too high) price for WinXP, and the Plus Pack would be another $40 or so.
And chances are (marketing being what it is) that M$ would sell more *total* copies as Core and Plus units, than they would as a single higher-priced package. Everybody happy!!
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
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."
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
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 I want is for Microsoft Windows to become such an inconsistent disorganized mess that the competition rises to fill the void.
Caldera now officially supports Linux distributions other than its own.
The battle will be pretty much over when Red Hat is supporting OpenBSD desktops.
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"
"The battle will be pretty much over when Red Hat is supporting OpenBSD desktops."
I honestly think that any flavor of Linux's biggest hurdle is it's dependence on the command prompt. I don't mean that comment to sound like I'm trolling, that's just how I feel it is. The latest version of Redhat I saw was close to it, and I've had people tell me SuSe and Mandrake are really good too. So who knows, maybe if Gateway or Compaq or somebody would start shipping with those, we'd see more adoption.
Once it's up and running, it wouldn't take much to turn Linux into a general computing device that never breaks. It just needs a little more fine tuning to that respect, i.e. simpler driver installation etc.
"Derp de derp."
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.
Therefore this demonstration is not just about modular windows but also rationalises why Microsoft should be required to release interfaces and specifications in XP that allow third party integration.
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.
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
What this means is that we can throw the idea of testing our software on the exact, or even the approximate platform the user will have out the window. It's amazing that it works as well as it does.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Flaimbait? Surely you can do better than that - Mr Crack Moderator!
Offtopic? Possibly...
Cheers!
Sure they do. That's why all those internet applicances were so successful, right?
IE is only really needed for one thing: automating the Microsoft Windows Update website. Seeing as how often you need to update Windows, I would tend to agree with you about how important IE is to the average Windows user...
A man who wants nothing is invincible
Wrong, wrong wrong!
//e, and Tandy Color Computers, people were busy writing "unauthorized system calls" type of books, with "peek" and "poke" commands to manipulate registers to do things the manufacturers wouldn't disclose on their own (but often used in their own software packages anyway).
#1, it's *very* debatable if Microsoft truly is a monopoly. I understand that Judge Jackson deemed it so, and so under the letter of the law that makes it "fact". Still, this is the same guy who made it obvious that he was biased against MS and probably big businesses in general. Courts and judges do occasionally make mistakes. I think the biggest reason people are so willing to accept the claim that MS is, indeed, a monopoly is because they've done plenty of things to anger everyone. (Sort of the "I would never hit someone over the head with a baseball bat just because they called me names, but if someone else does it - I'm gonna cheer them on." scenario.)
#2, a Microsoft API is only an "application interface" to *their* OS. Ultimately, they have every right to release an OS where nobody but them has any clue how to interface with it. Right? This might be a bad marketing decision, and people who want to write code for it might hate it -- but so what? It's not *your* OS/code, it's *their* OS/code!
As it stands, MS has chosen to give out a considerable amount of information and assistance on how to code for their OS. Most of the items they won't release (the bones of contention, so to speak) are APIs that let you develop alternatives to key software products and core componenets of their OS. I don't know how familiar you are with other commercial operating systems, but as far back as I can remember, this sort of thing has been happening. (Back on the C-64, Apple