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]"
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!"
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.
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)
Erm, the point is that Microsoft have been whining about how you can't make a modular version of Windows.
The states have countered with "but you have this Windows XP Embedded Thingy which claims to be modular"
It's not that the states want Microsoft to ship XP Embedded on a PC, it's that they want to prove that a modular version of Windows is possible.
Microsoft has conveniently already developed something to make their case for them, which is why they've been fighting vigorously to keep it out of the court.
In legal terms, it's called "hoisted on your own petard". IANAL.
Enjoy,
-- jon
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.
Not necessarily true. What do you define as 'IE'? I can delete iexplore.exe and my system will run fine, just no web browser. But if you delete the IE dependencies like shdocvw.dll and mshtml.dll, sure Windows will still run but Explorer can't. We need to define what exactly constitutes "Windows" here. Sure, you can consider "Linux" as just a kernel; likewise, you can't run the KDE graphical desktop without the KDE tarballs! Anyone knows that you can very easily replace the Windows shell; but without IE, there is no Windows shell, XP embedded or not.... Embedded systems don't have a start menu, buddy.
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!
At this point, IANAL.
Microsoft claims that to remove components from their current OSes and make it modular is infeasible. (agreed).
However, they have produced WinXP Embedded, supposedly based on WinXP, supposedly modular.
Also, you could look at their X-Box as another example. I have good friends who are X-Box developers, and they love it, because the API's are *identical* between Windows and the X-Box, so they can test their code on a PC (within reason) before putting it onto the X-Box. Clearly, there are modular versions of "Windows" that Microsoft has chosen to create for it's own purpose. The states just want that purpose to be "for everybody".
Now, either Microsoft is lying to the court, or lying in their marketing. You choose.
PS: I don't give a flying duck about this BTW, the only remedy I want to see from Microsoft is to be forced to publish every single file-format (Word) and protocol (Exchange) that they use, and keep those documents up to date.
Windows NT/XP was written to be modular. The whole thing is based around a microkernel architecture. You could turn Windows into Unix by replacing services. In theory, if the Hurd were further along, the nt/xp (whatever the hell MS marketing want s to call it this week) microkernel could run it and it would be the Hurd.
Windows IS modular, their claims notwithstanding. What microsoft has consistently tried to do is add APIs and then to insist that this is part of the operating system. This is how they "embrace and extend." It is only true to the extent that they can get ISVs to start using these APIs. This is why IE suddenly replaced Netscape in Quicken 2000 -- they got Quicken to swallow the new web integration APIs (and, IMHO they simultaneously screwed up and slowed to a crawl one of the best Windows apps out there).
These claims depend on what your definition of "Windows" and "Operating System" are.
All of that said, I don't think a modular Windows will do a bit of good in restraining Microsoft's outright criminal manipulation of the marketplace. I actually agree with the original breakup plan because I do not think the state should have a right to sieze intellectual property (force open APIs or source code). I think they should just keep financially and structurally beating up Microsoft until they finally decide it is not worth it to remain in defiance of the law. I am a big believer in property rights, given that they back both MS and the GPL.
Microsoft would deliver a base set of Windows with such marginal functionality, then have a nice expensive upgrade you'd have to buy to get anything done
I can hear the conversation now...
Joe: I can't format this floppy.
MS Rep: Oh, no problem, you need to purchase the Format:Floppy Extension, but before you can do that you will need Read:Floppy and Write:Floppy as well. Normally they are $9.95 each, but if you buy all three, it will only cost $24.95.
Joe: Well...I guess I don't have a choice.
MS Rep: Great, we are also having a special on Copy:File this week...
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development