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."
That's not a bad strategy... announce that it will take forever to prepare a rebuttal, knowing the states want this trial over with NOW. Although its curious that the states obviously dont think this testimony will be strong enough for the end result to be worth it. Bottom line: It's dirty tactic, but legal, and afterall, it's Microsoft.
Once upon a time...
If it's not a jury trial, then the judge(s) can't take it into consideration when they make their decision because it was never introduced as evidence.
Free Mac Mini
While the states have had a misstep or two, I see the wisdom in not prolonging the trial. Time is currently on Microsoft's side and the testimony and intent to demonstrate modular Windows, was probably sufficient. Actually going ahead with the demo c^Hwould give Microsoft a leg up in appeal of any unfavorable ruling.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Gates admitted that Embedded XP was modular and was based on the same technology as regular XP. He admited it could be modular IF Microsoft Wanted. What more is there to prove. In reality reducing it to a demo of someones hack to put XP embedded on a PC only risks making it look bad. In reality, I think it's better this way.
Remember: Everything Bill Gates et al said on the stand would lead the judge to think it can be done... and if she thinks that a demo cannot do anything more...
I was happy to see the judge allow the demo in the first place, but not so much so she would see it, but because it shows she's open to evidence that Microsoft is culpable and not particularly honest in what it claims to the court.
-pyrrho
Dragging this whole affair out has been to Microsoft's advantage since the beginning, and they're squeezing every possible drop from it. In the meantime they continue to work unregulated and haven't changed any of their business practices: the playing field of the browser war (which initially started this) has altered dramatically since. It's likely that unless new evidence of continued abuse can be brought to the attention of the courts, andy remedy handed down will be both out of date and inadequate.
Any spoon would be too big.
[/mnt/win_ntfs/program files/internet explorer]% more 98lite.bat
/y "c:\program files\internet explorer\iexplore.exe"
deltree
Of course it CAN be done. The point that everyone seems to be missing is that by removing IE's core components, you also tend to break a lot of applications. No one seems to freakin' mention that for 98lite to COMPLETELY remove IE from Windows 98, you need to provide the Windows 95 explorer.exe, comctrl32.dll, and shell32.dll files. Note that since you own a licensed copy of Win98 doesn't entitle you to a licensed copy of those Windows 95 files.
So yeah, from a _Windows 98_ machine, it's impossible to remove all of IE's "core components" (well whatever you consider them) and still have a functioning Win98 machine, without additional modifications. You will undoubtedly break some apps, or have future apps be broken that have shdocvw.dll or mshtml.dll (a LOT) as dependencies.
Do me a favor and remove glibc from Linux and tell me how that goes. Remember Linux is "modular"!
Oh, yeah, cause right between the adulterers and the murderers we have a spot for anti-trust violators.
Take it easy, slashdot. Breathe.
-----
Score 3? For what? Being wrong, at length? - smirkleton
Anyone who thinks the case or even this isolated issue is this cut-and-dry is ignoring intelect and thriving on zealotry.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
2. Microsoft bundles IE with Windows
3. Microsoft sais it would be difficult/impossible to unbundle it again.
I just don't get it.
I also can't build an extension of my house on the neighbours ground (= violate a contract) and later say "hey, hey, it will cost me too much to tear that extension down"
Can please somebody enlighten me why it is relevant how difficult a modular version of Windows can be done?
Why this strange double-standard?
No, the judge does not know that it can be done, she knows that the states claimed that it could be done but backed out when Microsoft asked for time to investigate the 'demonstration' and prepare for a rebuttal.
The issue is not over whether Windows XP can be made to run with specific pieces added or subtracted, the issue is whether such an O/S could be sold to end consumers and would not cause confusion, loss of interoperability etc.
Windows Embedded is not a replacement for Windows XP, it does not provide features that consumers are likely to expect in an O/S like the ability to instal any program. You can run Word on windows embedded but you have to decide at the time you cut the O/S whether it is included or not
The critical test for an alleged stripped down version of windows is whether you can still use it to run commercial software. Can you take the CD of tombraider and install it on the machine? Can you run Lotus Notes on the machine etc?
In the end the court case is entirely irrelevant as Microsoft could "comply" with any modularization order from the judge by issuing a new version of Windows, calling it Windows FL (For Lusers) and putting a sticker on the box stating '9 Dissenting States Compliant Software, don't complain to us if the software you want to run requires a module we were not allowed to include'. I can guarantee that there would be no hardware manufaturer who would want to buy it.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
The states have accomplished nothing in court today. This wasn't clever at all, and just plain stupid. If it isn't shown in court, then the judge has to dismiss the idea and not take it into account when making his/her judgement.
They scored no point at all. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the judge though less of the states lawyers now.
First off, you assume that there is software that runs great under windows as it is today....
Next, while you can say that lotus notes seems to run 'correctly', I would need you to define 'correctly'.
One, I would want to show you a list of features that we would like to implement into our tool, but can't because Microsoft doesn't us to over run their files (something that other OS's allow today).
Two, I would ask that you to run Joe Sixpack's hacked up version of the tomb raider engine, and have it satisfy your own 'correctly' term (something that users of other OS's can do today).
Finally, not only do I need to be able as a developer to change the machines environment, but also I would like you to prove to me that Microsoft doesn't take ownership of file types that I have other programs to deal with.
You make a strong point, but it's a little off the track. Microsoft is bullying other software Manufactures out of the market place with a big stick and a pace that is frightening. By not allowing competition for the desktop they are doing three things. They are driving me out of business, they are deciding for the customer what programs they can run, and they are engaging in antitrust activates
It's not the States' responsibility to design a version of Windows that is "marketable". It is the States' responsibility to ensure that Microsoft is no longer able to break the law using their OS monopoly.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Something that rang my alarm bells about the 'modular embedded windows' is the fact that it doesn't have an automatic mechanism for installing additional programs.
I can't rule out that some unscrupulous hardware vendors may customise an 'embedded/modular Windows' to only allow installation of certain apps, namely apps supplied through the hardware vendor.
So you don't like the browser on the computer you bought from Acme Discounts Inc? You don't like the advert bars, and your browsing history being periodically sent to their servers? Tough shit! You're not allowed to install another browser.
Solution would be to install another OS. But, surprise surprise! Acme Discounts Inc has done some weird shit on the motherboard that requires a special driver, only available as a part of their custom cut of 'modular windows'. It won't take any other OS. Attempts to write a driver to work around this are forbidden under the DMCA!
Welcome to the death of the standard PC, and the birth of the corporate controlled 'computing appliance'! Imagine Acme Discounts Inc selling such hobbled machines below cost for years to kill the competition.
Yes, M$ are bad bastards, yes, they have a history of unconscienable conduct in the marketplace, but there are people who are just waiting for the first opportunity to do much worse!
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
DOS doesn't require IE to run.
Now that Microsoft has discontinued Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition in favor of NT-based XP, it's no longer licensing MS-DOS for use on new mass-market PCs. All operating systems that are sold on new desktop machines include a shell that uses IE components and the Microsoft IE DOM.
Linux doesn't require KDE to run. Many KDE apps require konqueror components to run.
Most graphical apps on *BSD and *Linux don't need Konqueror because most X11 apps aren't KDE apps. On the other hand, Explorer is the only desktop environment on Win32 with any market share. Remember, when Microsoft gained a desktop OS monopoly, it had to start playing by different rules.
Many Win98 apps require IE to run.
Most of them don't really require Microsoft® brand IE but just an ActiveX control that exposes the IE API. Such controls include this Mozilla control, which implements everything in IE but document.all, VBScript, and security holes.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Microsoft didn't say that it would cost one billion dollars to make a modular version, they said it COULDN'T be done. Here comes a guy that did it for very little money (I'm not sure of the specifics, but I guarantee he didn't spend a billion dollars on it). Doesn't that show that Microsoft outright lied? If he did spend a billion dollars on it, that's still less than 1/2 (closer to 1/3) of Microsoft's FIRST QUARTER PROFITS. And whose fault is it that Windows isn't modular in the first place?
Sure it's possible to make a modular version of Windows, it's just that Microsoft wouldn't be in control anymore, people could choose what they want for a web browser, media player, or chat program. The problem with that for Microsoft is that if other standards become widespread, people might be more likely to choose another operating system and they would begin to lose money. I know they just hate the popularity of MP3. Anyone with Linux or a Mac can use those files. They wish everyone was using the proprietary windows media format so they'd have to be running Windows. MP3 became popular before MS could strike however, and the world is a better place for it.
As for support, why can't they just say that they won't support audio players that are not theirs if an OEM installs it? I'm sure they don't now since other ones are available. I see no difference in installing a different audio player as a consumer and having an OEM manufacturer do it.
Consumer: I can't play MP3 files.
MS: Are you using Windows Media Player (R)?
Consumer: No...
MS: Sorry, that is not our product, use Windows Media Player next time
If someone installs Winamp now, does microsoft stop supporting their Windows operating system? Maybe that's the next step in the MS plan: "You have to use what we give you and install only MS products, or we will not give you support."
Consumers are not being helped by this philosophy, they are being robbed of more and more choices as the years go on. Microsoft is trying to move towards a time when every developer works for them and they are in control of every piece of software. Frankly as a developer, that scares the pants off me.
Jason Goemaat
jasong@netins.net