Slashdot Mirror
States Drop Planned Presentation of Modular Windows
sketchkid writes "CNBC just reported that the nine states have dropped their planned presentation of a version of Windows XP without certain "middleware". Apparently, Microsoft said the news of this presentation blindsided them and that they would need "an indefinite period of time to prepare its response", but the states don't want to prolong the case any more."
Perhaps the states know that whether or not they can show it can be done is more of a moot point. The point of the penalty phase is to enforce the penalty, and if the penalty is to modularize Windows then they have to pay that penalty despite the cost. Whether or not they've alredy done it with XP Embedded doesn't really matter as much.
Granted, I think showing off XP Embedded would have been a good thing (from what little I admittedly know about it) but perhaps they've got enough already. We all can acknowledge that speed is of the essence.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
I hope the States at least mention
www.98lite.net
and its
http://www.98lite.net/ieradicator.html
Been how many years since that company proved explorer could be taken out of 98.
They already made their point to the judge. Microsoft said it can't be done. Now the judge knows that it can be done. That's all that the states were trying to get across.
It isn't a jury trial. It isn't even a trial. It's a hearing to determine the penalty for Microsoft now that they have been found guilty.
They are trying to determine whether ordering Microsoft to make available a version of Windows without "middleware' such as Media Player is feasible. If they have to release a modular version computer manufacturers can CHOOSE to include Real Player instead of Media Player, for example, and companies can compete for the business.
Please don't let me disturb your conspriracy theory, but perhaps Microsoft really did need some time to build a defense to the last-minute introduction of the XP Embedded demo.
For example, let's say the states introduced into evidence an XP Embedded build that included no browser components, just a TCP/IP stack. No HTML rendering engine, no Internet cache, no Internet HTTP/FTP protocol support, no URL parsing routines, no system JavaScript. All of these are part of the existing documented Windows OS APIs, but browsers like Netscape don't use them because they invent their own wheels for portability's sake. So you should be able to show this particular build of XP Embedded running Netscape and having no part of Windows Internet technologies installed.
If the states try this, I would expect Microsoft to show that a lot of third-party software will not work properly with so much of the Windows API ripped out. That would include Quicken and my own script-based software, just to mention a couple dear to my heart.
Anyway, my point is that Microsoft probably does need some time to respond, and the time will depend on what the states plan to present. The word indefinite can mean "unlimited" but can also mean "not clear". Perhaps the time they need isn't clear until they have a chance to see what the states are planning.
It's a hearing to determine the penalty for Microsoft now that they have been found guilty.
Actually, it isn't a penalty; it's a remedy. The judge isn't supposed to punish Microsoft for breaking anti-trust law; she's supposed to impose a remedy that will "undo" the damage that has been done.
If you are referring to the Active Server Pages engine (asp.dll), and IIS, both are optional components that do not have to be installed, and can be entirely removed (Add/Remove programs, Windows Components). Furthermore, you can then go nuts and install Apache if that is your desire.
Gates never claimed that it could not be done. Madnick(the Prof from MIT) never said it could not be done.
Their argument the entire time was that it was infeasible to be done. Basically the argument was that it would substantially increase the cost of the OS because of the amount of additional testing that would need to be performed. Not just to Microsoft, but also to the OEMs, or otherwise the problems of stuff not working would be pushed down onto Consumers, which would not make anybody happy.
Now the question the states have to answer is whether or not this extra cost is justified. i.e. does the benefits offered to increased competition outweigh the costs pushed onto MS, OEMs and consumers as a result of this.
It's not exactly clear to me how you can be dishonest about that since it is a value judgement, loosely based on opinion. But if you disagree, which I'm sure you do, I would highly encourage you to provide some quotations from the trial transcript which substantiates your claim that Microsoft was not honest in court.
Microsoft has never agreed to unbundle IE with Windows.
Jackson tried to issue a court injunction forcing this, but it was overturned by the Appeals court.
Not true. The effort can and will be presented as evidence. This combined with expert drivel, and Microsoft's "indefinite period" response thing, CAN be taken into consideration. The judge is allowed to contrive facts from the proceedings themselves. Will he? I don't know, but it is possible, and the states have a really strong case. Especially in light of the fact that several on their witness list are now inadmissible
Do me a favor and remove glibc from Linux
Why yes, of course. Try uLibc. Very nice little package. And while I know you can't run every app using it, you can run most. But the point of my post is, you can remove gLibc if you want. You have that option. You have NO such option in Windows98.