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.
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)
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.
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
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.)
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
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
You state a problem that will not be encountered. The states are only trying to show that Windows is modular, such that not everything bundled with Windows must be installed (such as a media player that discourages use of RealPlayer, Quicktime, whatever). That does not necessarily mean that Microsoft cannot provide these components if the consumers want them. The beaf with MS is that they install everything on your system, whether you want it or not, and the presence of that software is what stifles competition. If MS are forced to change, it would be removing the "install everything" aspect of the installer, while shipping Windows with everything it has now.
So, if you are a developer and you're writing a package that depends on MSHTML, the installer could simply state that it needs the Windows CD (which anyone with a legal copy will have) to continue installation. Programs do this all the time today - it's very common. Especially Microsoft applications (Office upgrades for instance). Basically, everything needed to satisfy dependencies will be available to the user, just not installed by default on their system.
We're not talking about MS selling stripped down Windows, we're talking about MS selling a modular Windows. You've missed the point.
Why bother.
Fully conclusive? No.
But look at the wine mailling lists (or even the weekly summaries). There are plenty of posts along the lines of "app X isn't working because abc.dll makes undocumented call def(ghi, jkl)". Why do you think that Wine still hasn't finished? They have to spend so much time reverse-engineering that actually getting to write the code is far from the hard part.
Solution to blink tags: wrap them in another blink tag, with a javascript delay loop, so they cancel each other out
It just works? Out of the box?
You mean like a Mac?
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan
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